pes a bea eran 
Oe STG 


$ ade toe ewan eee ee 
a ne 
patra ene been ee et 
OSE ad croc map ape ea a nee ee eran 


2 oes eee 
een ee nn se danbne eee neara pee 


(ea gee ne ee nena eal 
Sd ee ee el 


[PLE PASE STORIE PL I TS SSE EO 


Se pe a a he ne ae pe een etl} 


one ote mo = Ore ee ee a 


oe ee De ee a ae ae a ae an ee nt aT An 
Fearne apm aa ap apne cape naan emanate ae a Ae me pte br shi Hi Sle Sn Die Mile Ga aay t-te aloes ae a ne Gp a ana Seed howe ase aps tRlpe iee 


ton oe Re 


a oe = ates 


edb anerioe 


pe De pe 


ope te ne Oe pep gee ge ee ee Nee Gee 
oem ee ee pe ae ee PO SORE ee Da THs 
a Re ee eA aE we an OH On Oe Gee he ee he 


ses 


59 


— 
bss ee 


pow Ea 


rise sews 


osha su stetarat 


Sr eae eo BT OL SL DRT RIGS weg penal awe eeu ee 
S82 Or OS oe nn 9 9a oe ae ene eee Ong eel ge eon eee ye 
= oop ae gi bb peed eb erp eb Ore eee 
a edhe eetteent atin nane see te aetna fate ee as 
SEEL ES SS ail at aCe pL aL OLD Ot PL Te Ae OL OS SLES SL aL a Se eat St OtS 
NEG Sela e ag tae SORE DUP pM eT BL OTH OTIS TO we Bap ace 
[Teed ine PP tS 5 Cel Re bd wn oD HS ett FTt oe PLE FB OE Cored be gn 
bce desea at area et et aba aioe Me ta ptaneet cian platen 


par 
a 
pan 


wa eee ere ee SET 
eiplate tele sae. 
= 
gai or 


ee ae Oo eee On Bo eee ae ee 
Pe NIRS i ted 


poe ee ee 
ate 


ees ea ee ee se 
SNR ROE BOP ORO BOD De 
Se Ne rar oe 


es 
Sap ens ye ee te ee Be ee eee 
Sel ere teen yi eee ae ee 


— 


Soe e lecmiace cw aeerets 
ae. ae en ee ee a ee ee 
psd pear Boe Ps 


ere ree neon 
. me tn 


Farosers false elees 


9 ee eee ee 
re ree 
See ree > + tie a 
I aan 2 Pe * 

casa apa at es Spe ate ee Re 


PIRI F ELE P ETE) LAF CAFR BUSTED 


pte eae te Pe te tee nnn eae 
BT er se 


ae 


caeaare 


a ac ae aes. 
= eatpeteenea 


1 BS 


a ee as 
pata rere 
peat 


SSS try eee seen eee 
Tae nin eae he Che ne oe ee bee 


sek 


Sohne Os 
Sp ter aoe ae cred 


Seat seat ates 


Seca eee Seats ee eee 
SES 
Soins cae ae eee 


De oe eS SS me 
CAT hk hole ae See ae ee 


Se ap ee 


ge PETS te 


Se renee ees ewe 


ToS a ee ee oe een er ee 
3. 


Nee nee A Ye Ae Ne Ne oe Ne Ne eee me are 
z ee 


a a errr 


a eee te me eo tesa ree 


ise je Se 


eater erase toe 
Sirioee: 


- er 
Sy REG RSS DS TRE BE BIND PD 


SS TS a ee ee ee 
ee Fs ae ee 


ee tee ete artn teers 


Se nee = 
eee ee eh es ane Fa tee 


asthe or aeiewcsene ome 
TSerkpta ete be fee cane ne oe ee ree ee aS 


— - 
Tate te be hae bee em 
Sl5 4-5 St te 
ee oe 
DO a en ete 


UNIVERSITY OF 
ILLINOIS LIBRARY 
AT. URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

BOOKS 1 ACKS . 


CENTRAL CIRCULATION BOOKSTACKS 


The person charging this material is re- 
sponsible for its renewal or its return to 
the library from which it was borrowed 
on or before the Latest Date stamped 
below. You may be charged a minimum 
fee of $75.00 for each lost book. 

Theft, mutliation, and underlining of books are reasons 
for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from 


the University. 
TO RENEW CALL TELEPHONE CENTER, 333-8400 


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


MAY 04 i908 
APR 11 1996 


FFB 2 7 2008 


ay AM 
ek & P4333 


‘ 9 hed 


When renewing by phone, write new due date below 
previous due date. L162 


ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE 
INGE A LY, 


Ricci, Romanesque I 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/romanesquearchitOOricc 


————— 


ROMANESQUE 
ARCHITECTURE 
IN TFrALY 


By 


CORRADO RICCI 


With 350 illustrations 


NEW YORK, BRENTANO’S, INC. 


ag 


4) 


4 al j iT ® 


F ‘ ‘ 6; i td Noa? 
7 ae ;: 5 : ee: al en ee es bs a wor ~~ = Fk& digx 7 
& ie ry p 159 ‘s +e, 
At = ng * ‘ 1 ee q ‘ ¥ : ae a 
\ pea ° ras a ee, ota er 
t y P 4 * e oa j 4, < BFF vay i a -_ , 


. s 


» s ane aS 4 rane ji% are re © eee os) 
i : = - ili ; ; a <a) “es BAN 


s ¥ ‘ wt 
¥ é ( 
4 - -* =. 2 2 pe 
} 
‘ 
. i i 2 oa ; 
‘ a % 
2 ek . ep) 2 te 
‘ 
. < - ‘ 
: a 
>t 
se * 
' 
. > 
fe 
4 
ae * 
+ 
—— eee ae Me *, 
' 
= ot A = 
j 
t 
+ Fe 
- 
a ‘ 
7 =~ Sr 
at 
i 
i 
7 
‘ 
c. i 
" 
/ 
iw 
- 
- 
sd . 5% 
seg i 
oF ¢ 
,> 4 
= 7 = 
> = > f 
Ps i 
i 
t 
o 
‘ 
: 
+ | 
* * 
La} 3 * val 
a | 
- ral : 
* 
, i 
= . 
= a 
> A ae 
é = 
>» 
Lets ne 
oot WY 
fg >? ~ 
‘ teF, : 
Ue ie 


Arti Grafiche Bergamo 


Bari. Lower window-frame from the Cathedral apse (end of 12th cent.) 


ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE IN ITALY 


\ \ ] e are continually told by compilers of architectural 


manuals that Romanesque architecture begins with 
the year 1000, and that from this date forth there was 
a complete revulsion both in ideas and construction. It is 
perfectly true that in the year 1000 there was a power- 
ful revival in art. It underwent a more rapid and impor- 
tant development, and gained strength, greatness and 
richness to an extent never experienced since the 6th 
century, and, as a matter of fact, this development is 
connected with the whole of social and political life of 
the period. In spite of being forced to limit our obser- 
vations to a small number of monuments as compared 
with those that have perished, we are not able to re- 
cognize this complete renewal as synchronizing with the 
year 1000, any more than we are able to separate the 
art of this period from that of previous centuries. 

For us, Romanesque architecture begins with the end 
of the 8+, or if one prefers, with the end of the 9t» cen- 
tury, when changed customs of cult made new architec- 
tural forms necessary ; as for instance the campanile, 
the spacious crypt (from which the apse steps ascend) and 
the pontile. Further more, tombs are admitted into the 
interior of the churches. Narthex or loggia rise in front 
of the doorway, and along the side of the church the 
cloisters with their cells. Thus, since the year 1000 new 
causes create different forms of expression. They intro- 
duce a more intensive development of the vaults and 
supports, and lead to new possibilities in artistic con- 
struction which are soon varied by the revival of sculp- 
tural art. Nevertheless, Romanesque construction origi- 
nates in Italy in this period. Both interior and exterior 
are enriched by new constructional additions, and 


henceforth differentiate from the Byzantine style. The 
latter attained to its highest and most florid deve- 
lopment in Justinian’s time, and then declined during 
the Exarchate and the rule of the Langobards. 

Itis now more than a century ago that Arcisse de Cau- 
mont introduced the term Romanesque for the art of 
western Europe after 814, the date of Charlemagne’s 
death. This term seemed suitable, and: is increasingly 
preferred to others which may be derived from the 
innumerable groups and sub-groups, whether we analyse 
single monuments, special regional features, the con- 
tinuation of older forms, or particular sets of influence. 
It would create fresh difficulties for the already laborious 
study of architecture if one were to coin new designa- 
tions for all the finest shades of artistic expression. But 
we may state that there is no prominent edifice which 
has not its own special features. And if we were to go as 
far as to consider the investigation of the exceptions as 
more important than that of the types, it would be 
tantamount to discussing the appearance of a tree from 
the point of view of the size and colour of the single 
leaves and fruit being different. 

It is impossible to deny the derivation of Romanes- 
que architecture from the Roman. This does not exclude 
a certain amount of oriental influence. For the rest, the 
expression Romanesque is just as suitable for this art 
as for those languages derived from Latin or Roman which 
are fused with other dialects and idioms. The essential 
point is that Rome is the chief source of this art and these 
languages. Hence we have excluded from our illustrations 
all reproductions of monuments the general impression 
of which is more or less classical or Romanesque, but 


yet at the same time conforms to an art of other periods, 
or other conceptions. 

Who would fail to note the Romanesque in the lower 
parts of St. Mark’s in Venice, and the Gothic in the 
upper? And yet it is considered on the whole as By- 
zantine, or rather, still Byzantine in style, which in Venice 
actually skipped the Romanesque in order to develop 
into Gothic. This interpretation of St. Mark’s is due to 
the number of Byzantine parts, the multicoloured mar- 
bles, to the gorgeous facade and close relationship 
with many local edifices. For this reason it is not dealt 
with in this volume. Nor is the so-called Norman art that 
flourished so luxuriantly in Sicily and part of southern 
Italy, although, together with the Romanesque develop- 
ment, it evolved in connection with the classic form of 
the basilica. It is, as a matter of fact, an Arabo-Byzantine 
art. Its chief elements are at the same time Arabic 
and Byzantine: Arabic in the greater parts of architec- 
tural and ornamental motifs, Byzantine in the mosaic 
work which is considered to be the production of Greek 
or oriental artists. This interpretation of Norman art can 
only be accepted if it is applied to the political period 
in which it chiefly dominated in Italy; for Normandy never 
produced anything similar. Her art was related to the 
French Romanesque. 

We have endeavoured to reproduce the most beau- 
tiful examples in which Romanesque art developed accord- 
ing to its natural elements, in spite of employing 
Byzantine or Norman forms of expression, or importing 
French and German traits. We have also reproduced such 
examples of architecture in which individual forms and 
methods of construction are already evident, and which 
attain to full development in later periods. 

All examples will not be found to be included, but 
perhaps the most singular and those which have the 
most to tell us. Owing to their large number it would 
be impossible to reproduce in this volume all the monu- 
ments and decorative marbles of Italy from the 8th to 
the 11th century. And it is necessary to banish the legend 
that there are only a few; the contrary is the fact, but 
art histories only deal with a limited number. 

There are edifices which have been wrongly attri- 
buted to the 5th or 6th century, and which are never- 
theless Romanesque, such as S. Claudio on the Chienti, 
and others. There are also some edifices of which impor- 
tant parts have been coated over with a cement face 
and hidden under scroll-work or other ornamentations 
of the 17*» and 18th centuries and which have now 
been brought to light. And there are finally others, 
scattered about in deserted and remote districts, which 
have not hitherto been visited and are concealed from 
the student. 

We must therefore admit that the history of architec- 
ture in Italy from the 8th to 11th century is generally 
based on limited and incomplete material, that there are 


VI 


consequently gaps and resulting errors. Beyond this, 
little attention has been paid to old drawings which some- 
times supply valuable material for art history. Thus it 
has been stated that the pulvinar over capitals first 
appears in the basilica of Giovanni Evangelista in Ra- 
venna built by Galla Placidia. An example was revealed 
in some drawings of the basilica Ursiana in Ravenna, 
unluckily pulled down in the 18t» century, and it is not 
possible to state which was the earliest. 

It is therefore better to refrain from forming an inde- 
pendent opinion as to the origin or priority of certain 
forms, as they doubtlessly often pass through a period of 
development in which they sometimes remain practically 
latent. Does one perhaps suppose that the history of the 
pointed arch in Italy is clear? It is not. It is already met 
with here before the transition of the Romanesque style 
to the Gothic, and Bologna supplies such examples 
dating 1109—1119. 

What has been established is, that in Italy the Roman 
tradition outlasted the Byzantine and Romanesque, ap- 
pears in the Gothic and is finally absorbed in the 
Renaissance, and that it always resists foreign influence. 
If it accepts such, it is usually in decoration, and then 
only with modifications and adaptations to the local 


conceptions. 


* * 


% 

One point of view of extraordinary, and in fact of 
essential, import is the difference between construction 
and decoration, especially during the first century of 
Christianity, because it is also of importance for the 
spread of Byzantine art in Italy. The mediaeval archi- 
tects built in the Roman style because they had the 
example of innumerable Roman buildings of greatly 
varying form and technical vigour. They did not think 
of going east or west in order to see what had been 
erected there under the influence of Rome when they 
could always find magnificent basilicas and central struc- 
tures in all parts of Italy. 

Distant countries may influence decoration with ma- 
terial that is easily moved from one place to another, 
such as fabrics, embroidery, ivory, intaglios, metals and 
jewelry. Thus, for instance, in the Mausoleum of Galla 
Placidia in Ravenna everything is Roman with the ex- 
ception of some mosaic paintings imitating oriental 
fabrics; so too is everything Roman in the Mausoleum 
of Theodoric, with the exception of an ornamental band 
of decoration which imitates the work of northern gold- 
smiths; and in Nicola Pisano’s sculptures Roman influence 
is sometimes set aside by that of French ivories. Even 
if architects came to Italy from the East, it is always 
necessary to ascertain how much they introduced from 
their native country and how much they were influenced 
by their new home. Doubtlessly the circular ambulatory 
of Byzantine churches originated in Santa Costanza in 


Ravenna. Baptistery of the Arians (after Gerola) 


‘ome; and San Vitale owes its whole appearance, archi- 
cecture and technique to the baptistery of Neon and that 
of the Arians, the groundplan of which was recently ex- 
cavated and has proved a perfect revelation, and with its 
large niches led to the development of the apse ambula- 
tory. Again later, predilection for the East gives Roman- 
esque art numerous monsters that were unknown to early 
Christian art, or were rejected by it, as only real ani- 


mals were depicted for symbols. These monsters were — 


represented as climbing on portals, altar canopies, capi- 
tals, walls, cornices and font mouldings. But they do 
not hail from the East. The powerful radiating influence 
of Etruscan art also transmitted them to mediaeval artists. 
Of this we have proof positive in stucco reliefs of the 
Abbey of San Pietro on the hills above Civate (Pro- 
vince of Como), as well as in a mosaic pavement of 
Aosta, Cathedral and on the pulpit of S. Ambrogio in 
Milan. On a portal of Genoa Cathedral Romanesque 
sculptors carved an Etruscan chimera with a goat’s head 
on its back and a serpent for a tail; a figure that was 
quite well known in the Middle Ages and resembling 
another excavated near Arezzo in 1553. Nor is it pos- 
sible to deny the Etruscan origin of the lions support- 
ing Romanesque porticos, or of pictures of fighting 
dragons and griffins as seen in the arms of Volterra. Nay, 
we Shall discover many more such connections between 
Etruscan and mediaeval art when they are more tho- 
roughly studied. = x h x 

If we turn our attention to the fact that the main fea- 
tures of Romanesque reform of the churches begin in 
the 8th and 9th centuries, we shall notice at once that 
one reason why this has not been recognized is because 


Vil 


of the strange misconception that the apse crypts and 
the campaniles which were built contiguous to the chur- 
ches of the 5th and 6t' centuries were erected at the same 
period as these churches. In spite of the importance of 
this subject it is not necessary, using Ravenna as an illu- 
stration, to explain, by examining the buildings with the 
assistance of documents, the reasons for this miscon- 
ception which has been firmly rooted since 1878. We 
should only lose time by a controversy carried on with 
all the disadvantages of historical criteria, whereas this 
fact will naturally be recognized one day, and also 
convert the most obstinate. 

Before the 9th century there were no real crypts in 
the churches, but only simple tombs under the altars 
for the bodies of the saints. Those persons belonging to 
the church who wished to be buried within its walls were 
laid to rest under the pavement. Magnificent proofs of 
this custom have recently been brought to light by ex- 
cavations in S. Sebastiano and S. Cyriaco in Mezzo 
Cammino near Rome. Not even the bodies of the popes, 
archbishops, or the heads of states and princes were 
allowed to be buried in tombs which were raised above 
the pavement of the church. If they were buried in the 
church, part of the soil was removed and only a slab 
of porphyry let into the pavement marked the spot. If 
they were placed in sarcophagi, they remained outside 
the church building in the narthex or cloisters. On the 
other hand the imperial families, or the grandees of the 
court, were in the habit of erecting their mausoleums 
near the church, and yet in these they were often laid 
in the ground as in the Mausoleum of Honorius in Rome 


-and that of Galla Placidia in Ravenna. 


The first tomb of a pope, which was removed in 688 
from the vestibule of St. Peter’s into the interior of the 
church, was that of Leo the Great. But it was only in the 
8th to the 9th centuries that the custom was introduced 
to erect tombs to the popes, cardinals and bishops in 
the church interior, and to exhume the remains of di- 
stinguished persons who had been buried for centuries, 


| 


Aversa. Cathedral Choir (after Rivoira) 


S. Apollinare in Classe, near Ravenna, Crypt (Ricci) 


enclose them in new sarcophagi and place them in the 
church. If, therefore we find bodies of the 5th or 6th cen- 
turies in carved sarcophagi of the 8th, 9th and 10t cen- 
turies, this is a proof that the sarcophagi do not date 
from the time of interment but to that of the excavation. 

Before devoting our attention to the crypts we should 
like to remind our readers that from the 9t» century 
it became the general custom to erect tombs in the 
interior of the churches. Henceforth they contribute 
greatly to their peculiar features and gradually attain to 
such magnificence that they fill high walls, the chapels, 
and later on the interior of the apses (as for instance the 
mausoleums of Robert of Anjou and King Ladislaus in 
Naples). 

The line of development is from the tomb under the 
altar to the crypt destined to receive the bodies of the 
saints. In conformity with the ancient oriental custom 
the crypt was a semi-circular ambulatory. In Romanes- 
que edifices it formed an ambulatory running along the 
apse wall from which an entrance was gained to an open 
“cella” in the main axis of the apse. This type is met 
with in several places, particularly in Rome and Ra- 
venna, the two chief seats of ancient Christian art. It 
appears that it begins in Rome in the 8» century. That 
of S. Crisogono may be traced back to the years 731—741. 
Such crypts are found in S. Cecilia (817—824), in S. Marco 
(827—844), and in S. Prassede (9t» century). In Ravenna 
the same ground-plan is found in S. Apollinare Nuovo 
dating from the 8thand 9th centuries, and in S. Apollinare 
in Classe (12th century). 

On the whole, these burial places are only an extension 
of the tombs, and were not yet columned crypts. The 
latter were at first under the apse, later they were extended 
under the choir. Some of them were pushed to extra- 
ordinary dimensions beneath the transept. Formerly the 
opinion obtained that the Confessio or crypt of the 
Rotonda or Duomo .Vecchio of Brescia was of the 8th 
century, and therefore the oldest type, but now it is 
regarded as a 10th or even 11th century construction. 
On the other hand one still insists on dating the crypt 
of San Salvatore, at least that part situated under the 
apse, as belonging to the second half of the 8'» century. 


However the case may be, it is certain that already 
in the following century crypts of this type have been 
constructed in various parts of Italy: in S. Zaccaria and 
S. Marco, Venice; in S. Vincenzo in Prato, Milan; in the 
Parish Church, Agliate; in S. Michele, Capua, etc. Later 
on the crypts increased considerably, bot in size and 
height, till they were supported by a forest of columns, 
as for instance in Verona, Pavia, Ancona, Offida, Tos- 
canella, Trani, Bari, Otranto, and, not to mention others, 
the crypts in the Province of Emilia amongst whica Pia- 
cenza Cathedral has one carried by one hundred columns. 

In the Gothic period their number gradually deceas- 
ed, and finally they were rare. In the Romaneque 
period they added a new picturesque motif to the inteior 
of the churches, especially was this the case with the 
pontile and choir steps since the 9th century. It is Ae: 


ee a fp} |" 


Parma. Cathedral (after Dartein) 


VIII 


that the steps were necessary in order to avoid placing 
the confession too far below the level of the ground, 
particularly in damp districts, and this elevating of the 
pavement in the choir or apse (sometimes not more than 
one or two steps) resulted in magnificent perspective 
effects: sometimes the steps extend along the whole 
width of the nave, sometimes there are similar steps 
which are, however, reduced to half their width by two 
screens ornamented with sculptured pierced parapets; 
sometimes they are found on both sides of the nave 
with a wall in the middle pierced by small openings 
(“‘fenestrellae confessionis”’) to permit of a view into the 
choir; then again there are two staircases confined to 
the aisles in order to leave room for a richly decorated 
pontile like that of Modena. 


* * 


* 


Not long ago art historians maintained that the cam- 
panile dated back as early as the 6th century, and that 
the oldest were in Verona, Ravenna, Rome and Milan. 
To-day we know that no campanile is older than the 
9th century (we are not discussing the towers erected 
for defensive purposes). The campaniles of Verona were 
in fact built after the year 1000. The oldest (S. Lorenzo, 
S. Fermo, the Cathedral, etc.) all date from the 11th 
century, and that of S. Zeno, which was commenced in 
1045, was only completed in 1178. Milan has perhaps 
but two that are earlier than the 11th century, that of 
S. Satiro, which is said to date from 879, and the ““Monks’ 
Tower” of S. Ambrogio (9th or 10% cent.). Between 
the 11 and 13th centuries a great number were erected 
in Rome. They are of brick interposed with ceramic 
ornaments and fragments of porphyry and serpentine. 
These campaniles are square, tall and finely proportioned. 
Their substructures form a special feature, the super- 
structures are divided by marble or brick (denticulated) 
string courses into different stages; sometimes as many 
as seven. On each stage, and on all sides, there are 
either two-light or three-light windows, or pairs of one 
or two-light windows. But also those who finally admit 
that the campaniles do not generally date earlier than 
the 9th century want to exclude those of Ravenna and 
attribute them definitely to the 6» century. Without 
going into details we shall draw attention to everything 
that leads us to the conclusion that none of them were 
built earlier than the second half of the 9t» century. 

1. In the ancient and original plan of a church a 
definite unalterable position was given to each part. 
Why should this rule not have been adhered to for 
the campaniles, if they were contemporaneous with the 
adjacent church? However, the Ravenna campaniles are 
not submitted to a fixed rule. Sometimes they are on the 
right and sometimes on the left; detached or attached 
to the church. Occasionally they rise from the atrium, 
or from the nave. As a rule we find them in the most 


IX 


fitting place after the necessity arose to join them to 
older edifices. 

2. The building material of the campaniles is different 
from that of the adjacent churches, and contains frag- 
ments of 7th, 8th and 9th century sculptures. 

3. In order to make place for the campaniles it was 
sometimes necessary to demolish parts of the church, to 
fill up archways and pull down walls. All this would not 
have been done if the campanile and church had been 
built at the same time. And as those parts which were 
sacrificed always belonged to the churches, it is clear 
that they were built first. 

4. Among the mosaic paintings of S. Apollinare Nuovo 
(6th century) we find a view of Classe and one of Ra- 
venna, and in that of Ravenna several churches are de- 
picted. Now in such panoramic views the towers would 
have been conspicuous. But there is not a single one to 
be seen. Nor are there any on the model of S. Vitale 
which the Archbishop Ecclesius (521—534) offers to the 
titular saint of his church. 

5. In the Ravenna documents of the year 1000, of 
which large numbers exist both in the Ravenna archives 
and elsewhere, no mention is made of either a crypt 
or a campanile. Should in this case the ommission be 
merely fortuitous, surely this cannot apply to the “Liber 
Pontificalis” of the Ravenna churches written in the 
first half of the 9th century by Andrea Agnello. If such 
a diligent, exact and copious author, who describes Ra- 
venna edifices in all their details, does not even mention 
a crypt or campanile, it must prove that they did not 
exist at his time. They were not such unimportant or 
negligible structures as to have been passed over by an 
ecclesiastical writer who even considered the works com- 
pleted by individual archbishops as worthy of notice. 

The campaniles of Ravenna have two different shapes: 
square and circular. The square ones of S. Giovanni 
Evangelista and of S. Pier Maggiore (afterwards S. Fran- 
cesco) are considered to be the oldest. In addition to 
this I am convinced that the earliest campaniles there 
must be ascribed to the Benedictine monks who took pos- 
session of the church of S. Giovanni in 893. Therefore 
the first campanile of Ravenna (S. Giovanni) would date 
from the end of the 9th century. 

The peculiar manner of laying and bonding the brick- 
work — narrow bricks and broad layers of mortar (a later 
and poor copy of the jointing employed by the Romans 
and Justinian) — shows that the campaniles of S. Pier 
Maggiore and S. Giovanni were erected at the same time. 
The circular form is later, and to my thinking derived 
from the square form. When the Benedictines wanted 
to add a campanile to the church of S. Vitale (which 
had been taken over by them in 910) they raised one 
of the flanking towers of the narthex which contained the 
winding staircase to the women’s gallery and which were 
not higher than the vaults of the gallery itself. From this 


iy 5 of 
bees MET HI 


L | See Whe | 


. ee ee ee, ee 


| 


5 


S. Apollinare in Classe near Ravenna (after Ricci) 


a peculiarly graceful form was accidentally evolved which 
appealed to the public taste and was thus imitated. The 
same Benedictines built the other extremely beautiful 
campanile of S. Apollinare Nuovo which was taken over 
by them in 973. Later on the number of circular towers 
in Ravenna was increased to nine and served as models 
for others in Romagna (Saiano, Fabriago, Parish Churches 
of Quinto). Whereas the Lombards clung to the square 
form and introduced it into districts as remote as Lan- 
guedoc and Catalonia, the circular form obtaining in 
Ravenna was imitated in the Marches (S. Claudio on the 
Chienti, the so-called Towers of Belisarius in Fano, and 
in Cerreto d’Esi), in Venetia (Caorle, Tessera, Verona), 
in Piedmont (S. Damiano in Asti and Castell’ Albero) 
and spread over the frontiers to Gaul and Germany. 


X 


It is perhaps not impossible that the first plan of the 
Pisa campanile originated in Ravenna, where there were 
already some towers crowned with a double arcade, each 
of which had five three-light openings, and which form 
two nearly continuous galleries. We must not fail to 
mention that the abaci placed immediately over the 
columns of the two and three-light windows developed 
into the cushion-capital. 

For the rest, our statements about the Romanesque 
origin of the campaniles are borne out by the history of 
the bells. ,,.The name bell (‘campana’)” writes Augusto 
Gaudenzi “is certainly derived from the name of the 
Campanian bronze which was preferred to all others for 
founding bells’, and he then continues, “just as the small 
bells were called ‘nolae’ by Roman authors because they 


were made of bronze from Nola, and as this name was 
always employed in the following centuries for a small 
bell, it is quite possible that the legend arose, unsupport- 
ed by any of the older writers, that Bishop S. Paolino 
of Nola (409—431) invented bells.” — 
that they were used in the East since the 6t* century. But 
it is not easy to discover at what date they attained their 
present dimensions, and when they were first hung in 
suitable edifices. It would also appear that for some time 
no distinction of name was made between a large or 
small bell, hence ‘campana’ meant either. The best-known 
report of the hanging of a bell is that of John XIII. (965 
to 972). But let us beware of the popular belief that 
before this period the bells were not hung in belfries, 
And we no more know the date when big bells were 
introduced that we know when little ones were.’’—‘‘Their 
use was long unknown in the East, for the librarian 
Anastasius, when translating the acts of the 24 Nicene 
Council into Latin, makes the following marginal note 
in the 4th Chapter in which is said that when the body 
of St. Anastasius was approaching the populace of Cae- 
sarea:*) ,surgentes et sacra ligna percutientes congre- 
gaverunt semetipsos in venerabilissimo templo, nota in 


“It is quite certain 


margine: orientales ligna pro campanis percutiunt’. Ac- 
cording to the Venetian historians the Orientals only 
became acquainted with these instruments in the year 
865 when Orso Papino sent one to the Emperor Michael. 
In spite of this, according to the accounts of Canon 
Albertus of Aix-la-Chapelle there were no bells in Je- 
rusalem before Godfrey of Bouillon’s time. And James 
of Vitry (who died in 1240) reports that in the Orient 
only the Maronites and Latini used bells.’ Therefore the 
historical notices about them synchronize with the time 
when campaniles were erected in which they were hung, 
and which do not date earlier than the second half of 
the 9th century. Later on their number gradually augment- 
ed till by the year 1000 there were great numbers. This 
development was quite natural ; for beyond the impression 
made by the alternating delicate sounds of the small 
bells with the peals of the big ones in those days of pri- 
mitive music, the belfries themselves lent a special note 
of beauty to the outlines of the long low churches and 
cities, as will be recognized in the mosaic panoramas 
of S. Pudenziana in Rome (4t'century) and of S. Apol- 
linare Nuovo in Ravenna (6t» century). The number of 
towers owned by local communities and families was 
small. As a rule they were not very high and only 
found in connection with strongholds, town-walls, or, 
in accordance with the Roman fashion, flanking city gates. 
They became more numerous in about the year 1000, 
especially in the time of the civil wars and great con- 
flagrations, and multiplied enormously between the 11+ 


*) rising and beating sacred wood (instruments) gathered in the holy; 
temple; marginal note: the Orientals strike pieces of wood instead of 
ringing bells. 


XI 


and 13' centuries. In a single quarter of Rome there 
were 44; Florence had 150; Ascoli Piceno 159; Bologna 
180. Amongst those towns with the greatest numbers 
were: Pavia, Cremona and Pisa. Fazio degli Uberti sees 
“Lucca rise like a small forest”. The general impression 
of so many vertical buildings must have been magnificent. 
One example is still offered to-day in the view of S. Gimi- 
gnano, though only ten towers are left. 


a 
pew lo oom a 


J 


’ 


ee eee 


Rom. S. Maria in Cosmedin (after Giovenale) 


Not only did the crypts and campaniles introduce a 
new architectural element into the churches, but also the 
porticos: arches projecting over the entrance-doors and 
supported by large consoles, side-walls, architraves and 
columns. At first the churches only had a narthex (or 
pronaos) extending along the whole width of the facade, 
sometimes an atrium with four columned galleries. But 
the simple projecting erections were meant to shelter a 
single porch. In the 8th century the porch of the Ba- 
silica of S. Felice in Cimitile near Nola was erected. That 
on the north-east side of S. Vitale in Ravenna, which 
was foolishly demolished in 1890, was built in the 10t 


Ravenna. S. Apollinare Nuovo. Window (after Azzaroni) 


century. Those of S. Prassede, S. Cosimato and S. Cle- 
mente in Rome followed. 

Later on the porches, especially those of the cathedrals, 
underwent a magnificent development: the columns were 
placed on lions or other symbolic animals. Sometimes 
a niche or loggia was introduced over the main arch and 
thus the middle part of the facade was greatly enriched; 
sometimes, as in the case of Modena, the sides were also 
adorned with columns. Such porticos were not often trans- 
planted from Italy to Germany or southern France. Pa- 
renthetically remarked, there is nothing against the as- 
sumption that the porches developed in the same ambitious 
and creative period as that of the crypts and campaniles. 
The same remark applies to the three apses at the ter- 
mination of the basilica aisles; whereas formerly there 
was a plain wall or two chapels: prothesis and diaconicon 
at the east end. If we look at the choir end of S. Apol- 
linare in Classe from the outside, the general impression 
is that there are terminating apses for the aisles. But 
what we see are the apses of the prothesis and diaconi- 
con. Therefore the rich triple apse termination (consi- 
dered by some to be of oriental origin) appears in Italy 
towards the end of the 8 century and, judging by 
those monuments that have been preserved, this termi- 
nation begins to gain ground slowly in the succeeding 
centuries. In Rome, in S. Maria in Cosmedin, the triple 
apse dates back to the years 772—795, and to about 


the same time in S. Ambrogio in Milan. In S. Maria in 
Domnica (Rome) it was built in 820, in Agliate (Monza) 
the date is 881 and that of S. Vincenzo in Prato (Milan) 
is also of the 9th century. The apses are semicircular 
inside and outside ever since the custom in Ravenna to 
build them semicircular in the inside and polygonal on 
the outside fell into disuse. 

This is not the place to pile up statistics about monu- 
ments, which could only be very incomplete, and even 
if complete in connection with those monuments that are 
extant, would not be so for those buildings which no 
longer exist or are hidden behind later erections. We 
only mention a building in order to use it as an example 


! 


40 


= = +t 


q . E 
peep pt tt 


Milan. S. Ambrogio (after Dartein) 


XII 


to prove our general statements. It is useful to observe 
here that the happy motif of the long attenuated strips 
of buttresses merging into a series of arched corbels 
under the eaves appears in the 8th and 9th centuries and 
is frequently met with in Romanesque art. These buttress- 
strips, more popular in the ancient Christian architecture 
of Ravenna than anywhere else, and which always had a 
rectangular profile, reach either to the roof, as in S. Vi- 
tale, or they are connected by an arch which sometimes 
encloses windows (Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, S. Gio- 
vanni Evangelista, S. Apollinare in Classe, S. Apollinare 
Nuovo where the lower windows have already in the 
sixth century a brickwork frame of triple gradines). The 
Ravenna examples of a series of arched corbels, which 
are said to date from the 5t and 6t centuries, owe 
their presence to a superimposed story or structural 
changes of ancient buildings, with perhaps the single 
exception of the baptistery of the Cathedral, where they 
occur in pairs. Later on the buttress-strips develop either 
into clustered shafts or half-column piers, and these again 
were decorated with shaft-rings or spiral fluting (Trani 
Cathedral). The architectural principle of the earlier cen- 
turies of enlivening the external plainness of the apses 
also dates back to the 8th century, a period when the 
crowning arched galleries of the apses were likewise in- 
troduced (S. Ambrogio, S. Vincenzo al Prato, the Church 
of Agliate, etc., etc). Owing to French influence these 
galleries develop into the rich and finely proportioned de- 
corative galleries which could be introduced into any part 
of the structure. Although their effect is comparable 
with that of the continuous row of windows constructed 
in the same period in S. Demetrius in Salonica and in 
the Votive Church of Galla Placidia in Ravenna, they 
are quite different. The windows only serve to light 
the interior, being openings close under the eaves of the 
apses, but the decorative and florid element of the 
galleries rapidly developed to extreme beauty. 

The thin buttress-strips also break the monotony of 
the side-wall spaces of the basilicas according to the old 
example set by Ravenna. As long as they do not sup- 
port the thrust of the vaults they do not project much, 
and are only on the outer walls. But to return to the 
chief question: we must approach the problem of the 
choir and transept origins. S. Vitale in Ravenna is the 
only basilica with a choir of the Byzantine period (6th 
century). The same idea that had formerly led to the 
lengthening of the east niche of the Baptistery of the 
Arians may have re-occurred to later architects. If we 
dispense with this single example, which is somewhat 
remote from the period when choirs became general, 
we certainly find this sort of choir in S. Ambrogio in 
Milan. This type of choir is something new when com- 
pared with the early Christian basilica and much more 
remarkable than the transept which developed with the 
cross form of church plan and was already most magni- 


ficently developed in the vast Constantine basilicas of 
Rome (S. Peter and S. Giovanni in Laterano, and others 
such as S. Paolo, S. Prassede, S. Pietro in Vincoli, etc.). 

The round windows (rose-windows) are a later innova- 
tion which attained to wonderful perfection and orna- 
mental beauty when the Romanesque style was at its 
height. They look like embroidery or lace worked in 
marble, delicate, fabulously rich, or akin to goldsmiths’ 


Bxsrlique. 


° 5 40 xi 
RR St = < fe pol 


Milan. Atrium of S. Ambrogio (after Dartein) 


work in which the marble is treated like precious metals. 
Rome, which possesses in SS. Giovanni e Paolo its sole 
apse galleries, has not a single rose-window of this 
period. Among the churches of Latium there is also only 
one example (Toscanella). But wonderful creations are 
found in other parts of Italy; for instance in Lombardy, 
Venetia, Emilia, Tuscany, the Marches, and above all in 
Apulia. 

The rose-window is a unique Romanesque or mediaeval 
“invention” which was neither known to Roman nor By- 
zantine architecture. It was greatly admired, and in the 
Gothic period reached incomparable magnificence. Then, 
with the revival of the antique, it slowly disappeared. 
Leon Battista Alberti reproached Matteo Pasti in 1454 


XIll 


Ravenna. Calchi-Palace (Ricci) 


for wanting to construct a rose-window in the Tempio 
Malatestiano. He called it an old-fashioned illogical fea- 
ture. To construct it, it was necessary to demolish the 
wall on the right and left, and the lower half of the curve 
was useless. He added that the ancient Romans introduced 
horizontal circular openings into the top of the domes 
looking out onto the sky. But they never dreamt of wea- 
kening vertical walls by openings that were dangerous 
from the point of view of statics. 

The advice was followed. No rose-window was intro- 
duced into the facade of the Tempio Malatestiano! The 
oldest known rose-window seems to be that of S. Zeno 
in Verona. It dates from about the last twenty years of 
the 12» century, and, is about thirty years older than 
that of Cluny. One is naturally inclined to make special 
mention of the monumental rose-windows. But as soon 
as we wish to discover their rudimentary form it is neces- 
sary to go back to the 9th century. The two windows in 
Pomposa with decorated frames and pierced patterns, 


and having their counterparts in Venice, belong to the 
11 century. Then other rose-windows of the following 
century look down on us from the fagades of S. Pietro 
in Ciel d’Oro, and S. Michele in Pavia. 

The ornamental galleries developed as facade and side- 
wall decorations of Romanesque churches as magnificently 
as did the rose-windows. We have remarked above that 
they encircled the apses, and were then extended to va- 
rious stages along the sides, were carried to the gable 
of the facade, and finally encircled the domes like rows 
of angels holding each others hands and looking like 
graceful and delicate lattice work. 

It was Tuscany that revelled most in marbles, and 
employed two or multicoloured stones. Sometimes the 
restrained line of the architecture connected the columns, 
or everything was enlivened by dwarf or sickle-shaped 
arches, a peculiar Italian motif (which may be explained as 
arches, formed out of two non-concentric curves diminish- 
ing towards the points of intersection). The first modest 
suggestion of such decorative design will be found on 
the side-walls of the Ravenna basilica as was mentioned 
when dealing with the buttress-strips. But the main ob- 
ject of these, apart from the decorative, is the desire to 
strengthen the walls at intervals, and thus break the 
monotony of the long bare surfaces. 

There is also an 8» century building in Ravenna on 
which, beside other valuable Romanesque features, there 
is a real ornamental dwarf gallery. 

We must now discuss this structure (called ‘“Calchi” 
like its counterpart in Constantinople), as well as the city, 
which, it is true, is only studied for its 5th and 6th century 
monuments, but is nevertheless important for its Romanes- 
que buildings. The edifice in question is one that cannot 
lose its profane or military character in spite of an ad- 


Ravenna. Calchi-Palace, Stair-tower (Ricci) 


XIV 


SS iii i 04 qs 


GS LAMM ll 


VM 
VM Y 


VY 


SSG gy yi qm JT I] 


MMM 


: 
Y 
YU 


N 
N 


San Claudio al Chienti (after Rossi) 


jacent church. Moreover this is betrayed by its structural 
type and the records of history. A single transverse 
hall, the narrow loggia, the two circular staircase to- 
wers flanking the high portal at the east end and leading 
to an upper hall and the small door quite near the 
portal are all integral parts of a guard-house or “praesi- 
dium”. In the first half of the 8th century with the ex- 
tension of Langobard power, the exarchs did not feel 
their position to be secure. This was also due to dissatis- 
faction among the down-trodden citizens, they had there- 
fore surrounded their palace with a wall. The building 
now visible was the main entrance into the walled enclo- 
sure, and at the same time the “statio militaris” or ‘‘ex- 
cubitorium”. The little porch below was reserved for 
the guard or sentry. The big hall behind was the guard- 
room, and the large hall over it, reached by a winding 


staircase in the towers, was a dormitory. From the niche 
in the front announcements and laws were proclaimed 
to the accompaniment of trumpets. 

Behind this building was a large court enclosed on 
all sides by colonnades. The church of S. Salvatore was 
behind. It is impossible that the round and square co- 
lumns were an integral part of the church of which the 
walls and semicircle of the apse were found in 1907. 
The two rows of round and square columns along the 
sides do not fully coincide with the lines of the walls 
and the apse. For the rest, it is pure imagination to 
think of a sallyport at the side next to a church entrance, 
to say nothing of the staircase towers which must have 
led to the women’s gallery in the oratory of an excubi- 
torium, besides which the door posts still exist between 
which one passed from the stairs to the dormitory. The 


Portotorres. S. Gavino (after Scano) 


XV 


Almenno (Bergamo). S. Tommaso in Limine 
(after Dartein) 


date when this building was erected is practically certain. 
It was called ‘Chalki’ (from: the Greek word for bronze 
because thé“doors had to be made of this material), 
and, together with a church dedicated to the Saviour, it 
shows that its origin dates in the period of the Exarchate. 
Indeed, the building was erected in the same shape and 
for the same purpose as that near the palace of the Em- 
peror in Constantinople, on whom the Exarchate was 
dependent. And this too was called Chalki and was also 
connected with the church of the Saviour. This edifice has 
already been mentioned as old and carefully described 
by Agnello in the first third of the 9th century. And 
when we see that in 751 the Langobard king Aistulf 
resided in this palace, which means that the Chalki was 
built in the last years of the Exarchate, we must pre- 
sume that it was erected before the middle of the 8th 
century. Beyond the purely decorative rows of arches 
in the front, we find the waggon vault is supported by 
compound piers and polygonal columns, some of which 
have triangular bases. There are also two-light openings 
with discharging arches or “sopracigliari’’, which are also 
seen in the various campaniles in Ravenna, a type which 
was found in many parts of Italy. For the rest this city 
had remained a centre of culture and public activity, and 
still exercised conspicuous influence after the year 1000. 
Indeed, the ornamental terracottas of Pomposa did not 
originate in Venice. They are not made of Lagoon clay 


mixed with sand, but of the firm clay of the Ravenna 
alluvium. Guido of Ravenna, the Abbot of Pomposa 
who built the campanile and atrium for his church with 
their magnificent terracottas, and who was at the head of 
the monastery for more than a third of a century, cer- 
tainly fetched the artisans from his native town. Such 
terracotta ornaments decorate Ravenna churches: S. Pietro 
in Vincoli and S. Alberto near that city. The clay is 
not pressed but modelled and then baked. Sometimes 
the ornaments were carved in the baked clay in the 
same manner as stone and marble are treated. We have 
still more important proofs of Ravenna’s influence beyond 
the fact that the ancient city with her wealth of monu- 
ments continually sent forth new artists, and apart from 
the fact that the Ravenna towers were copied along the 
shores of the Lagoons. Theobald, Bishop of Arezzo, gave 
a present of money in 1026 to the “Maginardo arte archi- 
tettonica optime erudito” to enable him to travel to 
Ravenna and study the monuments there. He travelled 
“et exemplar sancti Vitalis inde adduxit atque solers 
fundamina in aula beati Donati instar ecclesiae sancti 
Vitalis primus iniecit’’*). 

In the same manner the architects of S. Claudio on 
the Chienti were influenced by the Ravenna structures. 
S. Claudio was not built in the 6» century, as one might 
suppose, but about 1000, as shown by the circular towers, 


4 


% 
f 
\ 
' 
par 
{= 
sit 
< 
N 
S) 
| 
: 
| 
“ 


rR MOURL SFG 1a ae iet 10 Soe Se Peo one 
Gravedona. S. Maria del Tiglio (after Dartein) 


*) He brought from there the plan of S. Vitale and was the first to skil- 
fully lay the foundation on the site of S.Donati according to the pattern 
of S. Vitale. 


XVI 


Mul te 8 1 


5 
Se DRS Se 


Civate. S. Pietro (after Dartein) 


the apses, the external walls of which are also circular 
and ornamented with thin buttress-strips and arched cor- 
bels under the eaves. Although these various motifs were 
developed in the 11t century, they originated in the 
second half of the 8t century and in the 9th, Moreover, 
we should not forget that the half-column in front of 
the pilaster is already met with in the Church of SS. Fe- 
lice e Fortunato near Vicenza (built in 985), as well as 
the square column with four half-columns arranged in the 
pattern of a clover leaf in S. Miniato al Monte on the 
heights above Florence (built in the year 1013). At- 
tempts have been made to antedate the period of the 
alternating of round with square columns that break 
the monotony of the rows of cylindrical columns in the 
ancient Christian basilica. But, in the fully developed 
Romanesque style, the magnificent frequent and regular 
alternation of square with cylindrical columns, supporting 
a double arcade has the important task of carrying the 
vault more firmly. This system of alternation only deve- 
loped later. Cylindrical columns placed between a given 
number of square ones are not subjected to a particular 
principle, as for instance in S. Maria in Cosmedin (772 
to 795), SS. Quattro Coronati (circa 850) and S. Prassede 


(882), all of which are in Rome. These columns are no- 
thing more or less than adaptations or transitionary 
links between old and restored parts, or reinforcements 
surrounding some of the columns, or, if one prefers, 
points of attraction considered favourable to the per- 
spective of the colonnade. 

Two architectural types have been retained without a 
break from the classical period to our own days, and 
developed new forms and effects in the Romanesque 
period: at first the square or oblong courts surrounded 
by colonnades (also called peristyle, columned court or 
cloisters, according to the purpose or position to the main 
edifice); then the building with a central ground-plan 
which developed in connection with the earliest aesthetic 
requirements. Sometimes they are as rude as the circular 
huts of primitive peoples, sometimes as imposing as the 
Pantheon, often magnificent, complex and richly orna- 
mented like S. Vitale in Ravenna. Many are small and 
graceful like S. Satiro in Milan, S. Tommaso in Limine 
near Almenno and S. Maria del Tiglio in Gravedona, or 
modest like the Baptistery of Biella, bulky like the Ro- 
tonda of Brescia, or delicate like S. Maria della Croce 
in Crema, and finally, dignified and magnificent like 
S. Lorenzo in Milan, unrivalled in harmonious proportions 
such as those of the Consolazione in Todi, classically 
perfect like the Rotonda of S. Pietro in Montorio, or 
gorgeous like the Salute in Venice. The central structure 
was, and will ever be, a wonderful form for picturesque 


Montefiascone. S. Flaviano (after Sartorio) 


XVII 


Ricci, Romanesque II (3/4) 


and decorative effects, and it is always to be regretted 
that the nave added by Maderno has disfigured the most 
magnificent church of the central structure type: St. 
Peter’s in Rome as planned by Bramante and built by 
Michael Angelo. This type of building was permanently 
adhered to in the Middle Ages, particularly in the bap- 
tisteries, which, although separated from the cathedrals, 
were near them, and numerous in Upper Italy. There are 
also some examples in Latium and in the Marches. They 
are likewise often met with in Tuscany and Emilia. Some 
had been destroyed or abandoned when the fonts were 
removed for conveni- 
ence sake into the inte- 
rior of the cathedrals. 
But we may say that 
they were continually 
used from the 5th to 
the 14th century, al- 
though less so from 
the 8th century. 

The oldest bapti- 
steries are the halls of 
the Thermae or Nym- 
phae. At first the faith- 
ful only underwent the 
ceremony of washing, 
therefore baptism was 
performed onthe banks 
of the river and in the 
Thermae. The Bapti- 
stery in Ravenna, orna- 
mented by Archbishop 
Neon with mosaic paintings and stucco work (449—452), 
was certainly a 3'¢ century “Jaconicum’”. The Lateran Bap- 
tistery, the first of the great works of Sixtus III. (432—440), 
was a “Calidarium”. Thus the public or private bath 
became the Christian “baptismal bath’. The shape of the 
building was suitable for this purpose. There was a basin 
in the middle, some niches, one for the altar, the others 
for dressing cubicles (behind curtains). No windows were 
permitted in the lower stage in order to exclude the 
gaze Of the curious. We must not forget here the churches 
with opposite apses such as S. Pietro in Civate, S. Gavino 
in Portotorres, and as we firmly believe S. Flaviano 


in Montefiascone. ; 


By what has been said we may conclude that the low- 
est phase of Italian art practically synchronizes with the 
Lombardic occupation which lasted from 568 — 774. To- 
wards the end of their rule the Roman tradition seems 
to revive. At any rate the Lombards exhaust their 
strength in endeavouring to subjugate Rome, and at 
this period Steven II. called on the Franks (who belong 
to the Latin race) to assist him. We know that in the 
last part of the 8th century, and above all in the 9, 


Ravenna. S. Apollinare in Classe. Coffin (8 th century) 


architecture was imbued with a new spirit, so that it 
created novel and characteristic forms. This spirit is ac- 
tive till towards the year 1000 (though not conspicuously 
so) when numerous important events carried humanity, 
and with it art, to new heights. It is astonishing to see 
what had become of art, especially sculptured figures, 
during the Langobard period: all animals are monstrous, 
even if they are supposed to be copied from nature. 
And the human figures are still more monstrous: the 
figures on the font of the Episcopal Palace in Pesaro, 
those of the lunette of S. Colombano in Vaprio, those 
of the parapet panel 
with Adam and Eve in 
the Brescia Museum 
and of the parapet pa- 
nels with the Ascension 
in Cividale, of the font 
of Gemona by Daniele 
of Bovino, and finally 
of the parapet panels 
by Ursus of Ferentillo 
exceed all power of 
imagination. It is incre- 
dible that art rose again 
by degrees from these 
hideous forms to the 
marvels of the Medici 
tombs. In fact it is 
almost startling that it 
should degenerate so 
far from the perfection 
of the Charioteer of 
Delphi and the Venus of Cyrene. Nevertheless we must 
recognize a certain artistic quality in the ornament with 
its wealth of details and the diversity of the leafage 
and osier patterns, also in many a monster of Etruscan 
origin (Mausoleum of Theodat in Pavia, 720) and in 
many a Roman face naively inserted between degenerated 
Byzantine elements. Naturally technique has sunk to its 
lowest levels. There is no longer any attempt at plastic 
figures or high-relief. The marble was merely sawn into 
slabs upon which ornament or figure was outlined and 
the surrounding background partly cut away. The features 
and drapery folds, or the wings, fur and scales of the 
animals, the ribs and the fasciae of the ornament are 
simply scratched into the surface. But the technique is 
very poor. The sculptor was only able to use chisel and 
mallet correctly from right to left. On a sarcophagus 
in S.Apollinare in Classe the wool of two sheep facing 
each other lies in the same direction, which for one of 
them is of course quite unnatural. The tendency is to 
attribute these works to Greek artists. But if one sees 
how great an area they cover, from the Alps to Cape 
Passero, one would at least presume that many native 
sculptors were not particularly loath to imitate the 


XVII 


Rivolta d’Adda. Church (after Rivoira) 


Greeks. But we read on a canopy in S. Giorgio in Val- 
policella (712), and on a parapet panel in Ferentillo (739) 
the inscription of one or two sculptors of the name of 
Ursus, which is certainly not a Greek name. 

The reasons are numerous why from the end of the 
year 1000 the human mind was obsessed with exaggerated 
ideas. To say that there is only one reason would be a 
much too limited explanation, namely that the Christians 
ceased to fear that the end of the world was coming. 
The feeling of security after this dread was dispelled 
(it has been much overrated by historians), and the circum- 
stance that people again turned to life and looked for- 
ward with confidence to the future might have induced 
them to work with more hope and zeal. But we must 
remember that it is at least exaggerated to say humanity 
had renounced all forms of activity in the 10” century. 
Even in those days noteworthy edifices were erected: 
churches, baptisteries, campaniles. Nor did the work of 
the Benedictines cease. They were very productive through- 
out the Middle Ages. 

In the renascence of a people physical and moral forces 
of all kinds are at work. And, if I may venture to say 
so, hidden powers too. Human society is like the indi- 
vidual. After a period of sustained activity it tires, only 
develops slowly, and finally becomes dormant. Then it 
awakens to renewed strength. What are hours for the 
individual become centuries for a nation. 

It is not our intention to describe the history of the 


11‘ century, for it may be read in any manual. All 
we wish to draw attention to here is that the Italian 
communes developed towards the middle of the century. 
They were peculiar products of freedom and activity, 
often inclined to be violent and bellicose. And we 
may add that the Crusades begin at the end of this 
century, awaken the spirit of adventure, increase the 
number of trade routes, and establish the power of the 
great coastal towns. Furthermore, the University of 
Bologna is founded. Guilds, trading companies and em- 
poria spring up. The people are finally able to take their 
stand on Roman law in their struggles against the 
demands of feudal law. Rome had always set the ex- 
ample that a Roman city subjugated and humiliated by 
the barbarians always casts off the yoke, assembles the 
inhabitants of the country, inspires them to resume their 
handicrafts and participate in the new freedom. The 
fathers of the city leave the churches and move into 
special buildings of their own. And thus town-halls are 
erected to which lofty towers are added. 


20 25M 
4 


5 fo 5 
$$ tt tp + 


et 


Pavia. S. Giovanni in Borgo (after Dartein) 


XIX 


“= =) 20 
a 


i 
ce 5 \ 25M 
P80 —$. $$ $$ ft —t = + 


Pavia. S. Pietro in Ciel d’oro (after Dartein) 


All the houses, including the mansions, were made 
of wood in those days. The great fires reported by the 
Chronicles prove this. The towers are another proof. 
They were erected by the wealthy near their dwellings 
in order to provide a place of retreat in case of fire. 
From them they could descend to the street. The few 
houses left over from the Middle Ages show to what a 
great extent wood was employed. Galleries, ceilings, 
framework, attics and staircases were all of wood. And 
there are various laws which go to prove this. Lodovico 
Antonio Muratori draws attention to the fact that the 
numerous fires in the Italian cities during the 11 and 
12th centuries are a sign that the number of houses 
covered with shingles must have been very great. They, 
as well as the thatches, often caused fire to spread 
quickly. Then the number of conflagrations increased 
towards the year 1000 owing to the changed political 


situation of the cities. The rule of the Imperial governors 
had kept them peaceful. But suddenly, after a civil revolt, 
the citizens of Pisa and Lucca took up arms against each 
other in the year 1004, and received the royal privilege 
to carry on war independently. From this date on, in ad- 
dition to the wars between the cities, internal troubles 
were added. In addition to this there was the gigantic 
struggle between the Papacy and the Imperial power. 
And the decline of the latter resulted in the internecine 
wars of the communes. Even if the tocsin of the Cinzica, 
which awoke Pisa and saved her from being sacked 
by the Saracens, is a legend, it is quite certain that alone 
in the first twenty years of the 12t» century the Pavians 
destroyed Tortona, Henry V. Novara; and the Milanese 
destroyed Lodi and Como. There were also dreadful acci- 
dental conflagrations in which whole quarters of the cities 
perished. The great fire of Milan in 1070, known as 
that of Castiglione has been famous throughout the 
centuries. This was followed five years later by one 
equally terrible. In 1106 fire twice destroyed different 
quarters of Venice; seven years later Cremona was deva- 
stated by fire, and in 1147 two thirds of Bologna suffered 
the same fate. It would take us too far to quote all 
reports of conflagrations. It suffices for our purposes to 
know that in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries the Italian 


Pavia. S. Michele (after Dartein) 


XX 


Milan. S. Ambrogio (after Dartein) 


cities were gradually rebuilt. Some of them arose out 
of their own ashes, many may have been rebuilt as a 
result of the misfortunes of the others. And henceforth 
more substantial and fire proof material was employed. 
At the same time constructional methods were improved. 
Houses were built of brick and stone, and numbers of 
towers arose. The chur- 


also note that the art of vaulting was never quite lost. 
Indeed, it improved in the 8» and 9th centuries. The 
“Comacini’, who chiefly flourished in the valleys of 
the North Italian Lakes, were either handicraftsmen (on 


whom the bricklayers and stonemasons — “collegae”’ or 
“consortes” — were dependent), or they were the celeb- 
rated companies of 


ches were vaulted. This 
necessitated improving 
or renovating old and 
weak parts for statical 
and constructional rea- 
sons. Hence it is a mis- 
take to maintain that 


architects and stone- 
masons. They boldly 
solved the main part of 
the constructional pro- 
blems, and even work- 
ed beyond the Alps. 
But the fertile imagi- 


the vaults of the Roman 
world, magnificent in 
their manifoldness and 
magnitude, had been practically completely forgotten in 
the 7th century, and were only re-introduced in about 
the year 1000. The cupolas on the baptisteries had 
been retained. Then it became the fashion to construct 
apses with a double curve, and we find crossvaulting 
over square spaces in the 8th and 9th centuries in the 
‘“Langobard Tempietto” at Cividale del Friuli, in the 
Chapel of S. Zeno (in S. Prassede in Rome) which is 
attributed to Paschal I. (817—824), further in the Chapel 
of S. Barbara (in SS. Quattro Coronati, also in Rome) 
which is ascribed to Leo IV. (847—853) and, as an exam- 
ple of the 8 century, the magnificent waggon-vault 
over the large hall of the Chalki Palace in Ravenna. 

It is only possible to give a few examples, but these 
suffice to prove that one does not meet with any edi- 
fices with a complete vault system developed from a 
consonant agreement of form, artistic feeling and techni- 


que before the beginning of the year 1000. We should 


Milan. S. Ambrogio (after Dartein) 


nation of unknown 
architects created 
beautiful works and 
bold designs in various parts of the country, espe- 
cially in Rome and Ravenna: the two cities with the 
most splendid examples. When we see the great 
early Christian basilicas, it seems incredible that such 
masses of marble, the wooden beamed ceilings and roofs 
of which were very high above the ground, could have 
burnt at all. And yet history tells us of so many great 
fires, commencing with that of the Temple of Diana in 
Ephesus (336 B.C.) down to the fire that destroyed 
the Aemilia Basilica in Rome (410 A. D.), and those of 
S. Sophia in Constantinople (404 and 532). There were 
another hundred fires till S. Paolo near Rome was burnt 
in 1823. In the 6t» century one decided to replace the 
timbered ceilings by vaults; the only safeguard against 
the great fires of the 11 and 12th centuries. At first it 
appears that the vaults were only carried over the nar- 
rower and lower aisles. This may have been due to the 
lesser constructional difficulties. Or the explanation 


XXI 


” MD pp re PISS 


ght 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Parma. Cathedral Details of the side facade. (11 th-12th cent.) 


may be that it was considered preferable to remove the 
timber where it was near the ground because in this 
position it was more exposed to the danger of fire. Then 
came the great nave vaults, first with simple piers, then 
with finely profiled groin-ribs. The construction of domes 
over the crossing of the nave and transept (combination 
of basilica and central structure) synchronizes with the 
construction of the vaults. The square plan of the crossing 
became polygonal (mostly octagonal) by the insertion 
of corner niches. We have not mentioned that in the plan 
of the Romanesque church there was as a rule one bay of 
the nave to two of the aisles. This is doubtlessly the 
average scheme (also transferred to the Gothic style), 
but not the only one. It was certainly necessary to 
strengthen the walls owing to the great thrust of the 
vaults, as also to group the windows and to reduce them 
to proper scale, as well as to construct pilasters and 
abutments. There arises a whole system of piers and abut- 
ments branching off into groin-ribs, as well as a very 
picturesque combination of rich capitals. These again 
are cubiform, or constructed on the principle of the 
cube with sloping sides, sometimes they are in a straight 
line or convex. Another constructional form, which often 
developed highly decorative features, is the compound 
column with projections from which heavy curtains could 
be suspended. The most magnificent Romanesque churches 


in Italy were begun and completed from the 11* to the 
end of the 13th century. The greatest sculptors of the 
period assisted in embellishing them. The first of these 
were Wiligelmus and his companion Nicholas who worked 
in Modena, Ferrara and Verona, further the great Bene- 
detto Antélami whose works we find in Parma, Borgo, 
San Donnino and other places. 

But how are we to give a selection of the churches 
and the artists of a whole epoch, or of the town-halls 
from the rise of the communes? Here we have an extra- 
ordinary collection of monuments which give us pause 
when we think of the injustice of those who will not 
allow construction and decoration to be mentioned in 
the same breath with the ideal beauties of antique art, 
and prattle of the Middle Ages as a miserable, dark 
and down-trodden art epoch. We no longer mock at 
the mosaics of Ravenna with Taine, we have rather learnt 
anew to appreciate their value. 


* * 
oo 


We have seen that the process of renewal which led 
to so many Romanesque art phenomena goes back to 
the 9th and even to the end of the 8t century. Ancient 
Rome may be considered as an essential model of all 
these works of art. Indeed, common sense points to this. 
The antique buildings scattered over Italy were very 


XXIl 


Modena. Cathedral (after Dartein) 


numerous and varied. It was impossible not to reco- 
gnize their model. This does not mean that other, oriental 
or occidental, influences were exluded. This is manifested 
in the 12th and 13¢® centuries. But the constructional plan 
is Roman. In fact the spirit of Rome was so obstinate 


that it always asserted itself in spite of foreign influence. 
We also recognize a relapse into the Roman style in the 
Castel del Monte and in the Castel in Prato, both dating 
back to Frederick II., also in the Apulian sculptures of 
Nicola Pisano, and in single forms of the Cosmati. On 


Phot. Gab. delle Gallerie Firenze 


Scarperia (Florence). Fragments of the pulpit of S. Agata al Cornocchio (12th cent.), 
now used as parapet-panels. 


XXIll 


the other hand the Lombards, who lived near the Alps, 
were influenced by Germany. And they again influence 
south-eastern France and Burgundy by their vault con- 
structions. In other parts of Italy Romanesque art is 
influenced by the French. But we should cease to main- 
tain “that the Norman style spread in Italy by virtue of 
Norman rule in Sicily and Apulia”. In this way one is 
prone to confound the Romanesque art of Normandy 
with the Arabo-Byzantine of which we have spoken. 

It is very difficult to write the history of transference 
and exchange of art forms from one country to another. 
Both may only be the contemporaneous appearance of 
one and the same form, and we ascribe to one particular 
place an activity which compared with that of another 
centre might only deserve the name of passivity. The 
influence in the field of decoration is greater because 
of the ease with which things like fabrics, embroidery, 
wood-carving, goldsmiths’ work and ivories may be trans- 
ported from one place to another. But there is also such 
a thing as direct and indirect influence: such for instance 
as that exercised by the monastic system, particularly that 
of Burgundian Cistercians and the Benedictines of Cluny. 
Thus all these reciprocal influences reveal themselves 
more or less clearly. But the Roman remains the nucleus 
of Romanesque art. There is also an archaelogical school 
which ascribes the introduction of the vault in occidental 
churches to Byzantine or Syrian influence. However, we 
consider this denial of direct Roman influence as very 
extraordinary in view of the fact that owing to this 
influence all parts of Italy and many parts of Europe 
show the most various and powerful examples of vaults, 
cupolas and domes: domes as gigantic as those of the 
Thermae halls, as that of the Pantheon and of other 
buildings with a central plan. Some of the domes, as 
that of the Mausoleum on the Via Traenestina, ascribed 
to Gordian, that of the Ambulatory of the Circus 
Maxentius, and of the Mausoleum of S. Helen on the 
Via Labicana which is called Tor Pignattara just be- 
cause the vessels were made of pieces of terracotta. 
There were waggon and cross vaults with intersecting 
ribs, such as are found in the ruins of the aqueducts 
of Aqua Vergine, the Thermae of Diocletian, the Villa 
Sette Bassi on the Via Latina, and the so-called Arch 
of Janus. And did not domes crown the gigantic Basilica 
of Constantine ? 

Together with numerous ground-plans and forms of 
ceilings, Romanesque architecture adopted from Rome 
arches of all dimensions, the shape of the walls, embattled 
gates, bridges, and what is more important, the motif of 
the various colonnades surmounted by architraves, as 
for instance in the Baptistery of Parma and the Parish 
Church of Arezzo. And the whole of the Middle Ages, 
as well as the Renaissance have admired these on the 
Triumphal Arch of Septimus Severus (built 203 and 
destroyed towards the end of the 6th century). For 


the rest, the Porta Appia in Rome, the Arch of Augustus 
in Fano, and innumerable other Roman edifices had 
graceful colonnades. Thus the Romanesque artists copied 
many decoration motifs, if they did not make actual use 
of antique fragments. The Byzantines ornamented the 
interior of their edifices very richly and the exteriors 
very simply. The Christian saying that “beauty is not 
on my countenance but within me” seems to have given 
expression to this leading characteristic. The Romanesque 
artists gradually ornamented the exterior according to 
Roman patterns, and later on we find relief ornament 
divided into stages. Were there is neither marble nor 
stone, nor sculpture, artisans decorate the walls by laying 
the bricks in geometrical and multicoloured patterns; 
more often with rich patterns of inlaid marble in a 
fashion known as “opus sectile’”’. But this too is Romano- 
Byzantine, and probably never ceased in the intervening 
centuries. In this connection it is necessary to remark 
that the “opus sectile’, after having fallen somewhat 
into disuse, was revived 
after the 9th century, 
particularly in Rome, as 
the pavement mosaics 
of S. Cecilia, S. Marco, 
S. Prassede and the 
S.Zeno Chapels prove. 

The transennais also 
a Roman inheritance. 
Those with little arches 
and cross patterns are 
always Roman. Later 
on the lattice pattern 
is met with. We have 
already mentioned the 
cubic capitals and the 
bracked capitals. To 
this we must add that 
on nearly all the other 
capitals a more or less 
extensive remodelling 
of the classical Corin- 
thian or composite ca- 
pitals is recognizable. 
In S. Saba in Rome the 
8th century makes use 
of the Ionic example. 
Etruria and Rome set 
the example of the em- 
ployment of stucco 
throughout the Middle 
Ages. It is an esta- 
blished fact that the 
stucco reliefs in Civate 
are derived from Etrus- 
can patterns. It is not 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Cori. Candelabrum in S. Maria 


XXIV 


necessary for us to examine how many and which Roman 
elements, either recognized as such or not, have passed 
into Gothic art. The Gothic appears to be that style 
which is most removed from the classic. In fact it con- 
tradicts it. Certainly, Romanesque art helped to pave 
the way for the Gothic. And it actually appears that 
since the middle of the 12 century the style which was 
at its zenith had to make room for the one that was 
just developing. The pointed arch gradually gained 
ground till it triumphed. The tendency towards the verti- 
cal continually increases. The vaulting compartments 
develop from square to oblong with closer placing of 
the piers. The apse again becomes polygonal. The crypts 
disappear, whereas the choir ambulatories and_but- 
tresses multiply. Finials occur abundantly, single forms 
are multiplied, and a whole world of animals and plants 
are copied from nature and replace fantastical ornament 
with interwoven monsters. 

The tendency to-day is to attribute the totality of 
the Romanesque innovations to a uniform training of 
the artists, and to their common desire to obtain parti- 
cular light effects. This induces critics, at least that is our 
opinion, to ascribe aesthetic intentions to the old masters 
of architecture which they neither had nor could have 
had. They were possessed of a much simpler and more 
natural spirit than one is inclined to presume. At the 
best they were imbued with a desire for colour which 
was a condition of their love of rich decorations and 
ornament. This is particularly revealed on the exterior 
of the edifices. For in those days the life of the cities 
was warm-blooded and had become superficial. The 
citizens no longer regarded religion as something to be 
exercised in solitude and as offering a retreat for the 
soul. But that the architects of that period should have 
carefully planned to subject everything to light effects 
is an anachronistic conception and tantamount to con- 
founding effect with cause. 


* * 

A history of Italian Romanesque art dealing with all 
its varieties and so-called natural affinities, as well as 
with the mutal interchange of influences and ideas with 
France, Germany and the Orient would be too long. 
So too would a history of the various characteristics and 
peculiarities in the single provinces of mediaeval Italy 
which cling like mistletoe to the great Roman tree. In 
France and Germany Romanesque art was more unified 
and occupied with static problems. In Italy such unity 
will not be found, not only because of the different 
temperament of the various peoples, but also on account 
of the civic and political conditions. The differences of 
government, habits, traditions and taste and the neces- 
sities of different climatic conditions are all causes which 
have on influence on art. 


Already in the advanced Middle Ages Lombardy demon- 


strated its spirit, organization and powers of expansion. 
Mention of the building guilds, the so-called ““(Comacini“ 
was made in the Langobard laws of the 7 century. 
The “Comacini“ were companies who travelled through 
all parts of Italy and abroad, 
and who gradually evolved by 
observation and practice a well- 
regulated system of construc- 
tion. 

The Lombard architects show 
from the very start that pro- 
nounced tendency towards sculp- 
tural ornament which later on, 
during the Renaissance, culmi- 
nated in Bergamo and in Certosa 
di Pavia. The church of S. Michele 
in Pavia is another proof. They 
prefer a single gable crowned by 
arched galleries to the Toscan 
facade with four roof-inclines, 
from which later on the great 
development of the ornamental 
loggias sprang. Their technical 
skill induces them to cheerfully 
risk difficulties, such as the erec- 
tion of bold and magnificent to- 
wers, domes, cupolas and vaults. 
There is one church that seems 
to assemble the results of the 
four centuries of experiments: 
the magnificent edifice of S.Am- 
brogio in Milano, and to such 
a degree that, although the struc- 
ture is not always prototypal, it 
is yet the greatest and most com- 
plicated example of Lombardic 
constructive ability during the 
Romanesque period. 

To the Lombards are also due 
the pure Romanesque edifices 
in Piedmont, and above all in 
Venetia, as for instance S. Zeno 
in Verona and the Trentino 
Cathedral built by Adam of 
Arogno. But Venice on_ her 
Lagoon still wraps herself in 
Byzantine splendours owing to 
the large amount of her building material accumulated 
in the 5th and 64 centuries, and owing to her connection 
with the East, and the neighbouring examples of Ravenna, 
Grado, Aquileja and Parenzo. On the other hand the 
Province of Emilia pays tribute to Lombardy with her 
superb cathedrals of Piacenza, Borgo S. Donnino, Parma, 
Modena, Ferrara (those of Reggio and Bologna are very 
beautiful, but transformed). The sculptors were passiona- 


Phot. Moscioni 


Capua. Candelabrum in 
the Cathedral (first half 
of 13th cent.) 


XXV 


tely fond of ornamenting them. Amongst these Antélami 
was the greatest. Ravenna stands lonely and silently aside 
meditating new forms. She supplies models and masters 
for distant parts of the surrounding country till she 
renounces all activity and seems to vanish and lose herself 
in the solitude of her coasts. Tuscany, with its pure 
and precise spirit, full of taste and decorum, prefers 
architectural to sculptural decoration. It satisfies its 
sense of beauty by the infinite successions and stories 
of arched loggias by bi-coloured marbles, also favoured 
by the Ligurians who oscillated between the Lombards 
and Tuscans. And if Tuscany turns to sculptural art, she 
does so to subordinate it to architecture, as in the 
cathedrals of Modena, Borgo S. Donnino, S. Zeno in 
Verona and the Baptistery in Parma. Nor is the narrative 
form of relief favoured any more than detached statues. 

Tuscany may be divided into three great centres 
of architectural activity. Florence has already lost herself 
in a dream of graceful classicism. Rich in the elegance 
and harmony that led to the miracles of a Brunellesco 
Florence seems to be a bridge between ancient Rome 
and the Renaissance with her Baptistery, S. Miniato al 
Monte, San Salvatore and the Badia of Fiesole. Lucca, 
on the other hand, endeavours to combine Pisan vivacity 
with Lombardic richness, and appears less characteristic. 
She develops within her own walls and exercises no 
influence beyond them. Pisa, with her innumerable arcaded 
galleries, her multicoloured fasciae and rhomb patterns, 
finds imitators throughout Italy. The monuments of 
Sardinia are Pisan; as well as many churches in other 
districts; in the neighbouring Lucchesia, in Pistoja, Vol- 
terra and S. Gimignano, and further south in Massa 
Marittima, nay, as far as Sannio (Benevento), Apulia 
(Troia and Siponto) and Dalmatia (Zara). 

It is quite natural that Pisa, with her incomparable 
groups of architectural monuments (Cathedral, Campanile 
and Baptistery), was bound to appeal deeply to the 
imagination. 

In the Marches there is a breath of Lombardic influence. 
However, it is translated into those simpler forms which 
this province always favoured. But the Umbrian Romanes- 
que monuments (Assisi, Foligno, Spoleto, Narni) are consi- 
dered to be the works of native sculptors who had not 
emancipated themselves from the powerful Lombardic 
influence. Their works are to be met with in Upper 
Latium in Viterbo, Tarquinia, Montefiascone and in 
Toscanella, where there are two of the most interesting 
Romanesque churches in Italy. The Lombardic style only 
reached Rome like an echo which reverberated in the 
apse of SS. Giovanni e Paolo. 

The use of ancient fragments of marble in mediaeval 
restoration work is particularly frequent in Rome. The 
so-called House of Cola di Rienzo (11t» century), and 
the Chapel of S. Barbara in SS. Quattro Coronati may 
serve as examples. Rome also restores the ancient pagan 


and Christian edifices, adapts them to new purposes, 
enlarges or reduces them. The new work done by the 
sculptors is incredibly poor, and the period of Robert 
Guiscardo’s depredations (1084) seems to synchronize 
with the depth of decadence. But suddenly, with the 
“Marmorari”’, there is a great outbreak of sculptural 
magnificence. The Vassaletto, Ranucci, Cosmati: all great 
artificers in marble, bend and form it into spirals as 
though it were plastic material; they decorate it with 
mosaics, and are able to emulate the Byzantine sump- 
tuousness of Rome and Ravenna, and the Arabic splen- 
dours of Sicily. In this manner they enrich the ancient 
marble works of art. They erect porticos in front of the 
churches, amongst which that of Civita Castellana (1210) 
is the most magnificent with its great arch that seems 
to anticipate the boldness of the Renaissance. They 
build cloisters of unique splendour (S. Giovanni in 
Laterano, S. Paolo near Rome), the columns and capitals 
of which appear to vie with the beauty and grace of the 
flowers on the lawns they enclose. In the churches they 
stretch splendid and highly coloured marble carpets in 
which porphyry and serpentine set the dominant note 
of varied colours. They ornament innumerable churches 
with an ever-growing wealth of rich works of art by 
erecting screens, pulpits, candelabra for the Paschal 
candles, altars, canopied shrines, ambones, carved seats, 
episcopal thrones and tombs. The “Marmorari’”’ did not 
stray far from Rome, hence their sphere of activity is 
roughly limited to Latium, although some of their works 
are found further afield, as for instance in Sassovivo 
sopra Foligno. They carved the tombs of Edward the 
Confessor and Henry III. in London. Some even ascribe 
the pulpits of Amalfi and Gaéta to these artists. Added 
to all this we should remember that, even if the art of 
Amalfi and Salerno terminated in the 12‘» century (though 
these cities possessed schools of sculpture), a Campanian 
art developed with unique force. It followed the example 
of Sicily in the 13th century, and produced gorgeous 
creations of magnificent colouring (as for instance the 
pulpits of Sessa Aurunca, Salerno and Ravello) and 
forms which are to a certain extent in contradistinction 
to the masculine severity of those of Apulia. 

Speaking generally, however, we can recognize in 
southern Italian art a prodigious revival of antique in- 
fluence which shows itself in Ruvo and Castel del Monte, 
as well as in Capua and Ravello, and which is due to 
the active spirit of Frederick II. 

Nicolo di Pietro transplants the same love of the 
antique to Pisa, and acquires by his works there both 
the rights of a new home and the name of Nicola Pisano. 

In southern Italy we set foot in the zone in which 
Arabo-Byzantine art irradiates. This art has been wrongly 
termed Norman. It extends from Sicily to the Abruzzo 
mountains, to Lower Latium and to Apulia. One is in 
the habit of attributing the great basilicas of Bari to 


XXVI 


this school of art, but there are many who maintain, 
and rightly too, that, together with the surviving Byzantine 
motifs, there is Lombardic influence here. Indeed, we 
meet the work of Lombard artists in the churches of the 
Campania, and even in the “heel” of Italy. And it is 
really very difficult to classify the churches of Bari 
together with the Cappella Palatina of Palermo and 
the cathedrals of Monreale and Cefalu. Perhaps there 
is a Norman trait in them too, but, if so, Normano- 
Romanesque. In connection with church “utensils”, if we 
may employ such a term for candelabra, altars and am- 
bones, the rich work of southern Italy may be compared 
with that of the “marmorari romani’, but the latter show 
fewer oriental traits. The “opus sectile” pavements alter- 
nate with mosaics richly decorated with monsters, 
chivalresque figures, symbolical, historical and astro- 
nomical representations. The most beautiful are in 
Otranto. This fashion was favoured throughout Italy. 
There are examples, though fragmentary, in Ravenna, 
Pomposa, Reggio, Emilia, Aosta, etc. 

Bronze doors, metal-castings and inlaid-metal work 
are more frequent there than in other parts of Italy. 
Bonannus of Pisa completed the bronze doors for the 
main entrance of Monreale Cathedral in 1186. But Bari- 
sano da Trani, who was also a bronze-founder and likewise 
worked in Monreale, Ravello and his native town, hailed 
from southern Italy. Ruggero delle Campane da Melfi 
cast doors for the tomb of Bohemund in Canosa; Oderisio 
of Benevent for Troia Cathedral, and perhaps for his 
native town. On these doors we find relief work which 
differs from that on the inlaid doors with Byzantine 
features in Montecassino, S.Michele on Gargano, S. Paolo 
near Rome and Salerno. 


Pianella (Teramo). 


Finally, there is nothing more beautiful in the world 
than the cathedrals of Apulia; rich, graceful, the colour 
of old gold and ivory, they rise above a crowd of low 
white houses which resemble a gathering of choir-girls 
kneeling in adoration at their feet. We shall never forget 
the churches of Barletta, Bitonto, Altamura, Ruvo, Trani, 
Giovinazzo, Troia and of other cities, some of which 
are on the sea-shore, others on the slopes overlooked 
by Castel del Monte. But, in reference to the latter, this 
wonderful building cannot, to our thinking be Romanesque, 
and it should come between the Classic and the Gothic 
periods. 

Southern Italy felt the influence of the East and Europe: 
on the one hand Romano-Byzantine art, and on the other 
Saracen, Tuscan, Lombardic, French and German. In its 
pavements are patterns from the Levant contrasting with 
the figures of Arthur and Roland. Thus the Orient and 
Occident meet here. The impressionability and adap- 
tability of the hot-blooded inhabitants lead them to 
accept all inspirations, and yet a typical art is born here; 
powerful and varied in its forms of decoration. 

If that part of Italy situated on the Mediterranean 
is “louder” and more fiery, the Adriatic is subdued by a 
more masculine note. How pleasant it would be to dwell 
on the contemplation of the single monuments, and to 
catch the echo of foreign tongues, or to hear the dulcet 
language of Italy telling us her own tales. But to do 
this we should require volumes, and not a brief foreword 
in which, as in a fleeting vision, we can only obtain a 
rapid view of everything, and admire from afar the mar- 
vellous garden with one short glance, and not, as Dante 
has it “cull flowers from among flowers”. 


Phot. Moscioni 


Details of S. Angelo pulpit by Master Acuto (12th cent.) 


XXVII 


Phot. Alinari 
Milan. S. Ambrogio. Left side of the forecourt (12 cent.) and the Belfry of the Canons (1128) 


Ricci, Romanesque 1 


inari 


. Al 


Phot 


10 


ing the facade of S. Ambrog 


adjoin 


Milan. The hall of the forecourt (12t» cent.) 


rl 


iInar 


Phot. Al 


Ambrogio (12*» cent.) 


Milan. Right wing of the forecourt of S 


AINYUII yO] 10 wyG PY} OF YR S90S }Y S11 9y} UO sxUOP] 
94} Jo Arjjag pay[ed-os a4} Sgz{] Ul yINq sem suoueD 9y} Jo Ayjag pay[es-Os BY], “OLsorquIy ‘Ss Jo MOIA UIe;Y “URTIAY 


ueUly yo4g 


eee 


inari 


Phot. Al 


Ambrogio (12*» cent.) 


in Porch of S 


Milan. Ma 


aavu oy} Jo ArayjeS-apis pue seze-ysty oy} Jo Adoued ("3020 wWZT—mI]T) Osorquiy ‘S “uel 


teuty "yOUd yeury "304d 
| 


(3099 wZl—m IT) esl Ya] Wor uses o1lsoiquiy *S Jo JoIayUy ‘URL IP] 


teurty "304d 


o1soiquiy *S ur ydjnd 9q} jo Ive puke I9UI0D) “UR]II] 


weUlTYy *}OUg yearly oud 


at a i A i td ee a ee at neem canal , 


Phot. Alinari 


iis 
Phot. Alinari 


Milan. S.Ambrogio. Arch in the atrium — Pulpit erected in the 13 cent. partly out of fragments 
from the pulpit destroyed in 1196 by the fall of the vaulting 


10 


O8ZI jNoqe wo. sajep 97e}s JUVsSoId sz {po10jso1 JUI}X9 JeI1S BO} pue po}eaouas ATWUONbas J 


reUy 304g 


‘O1S10}SN'F “SG JO AOMI}UT “ueTI/] 


11 


ueUrTy 304d 


(SEZL—RZSI) WULDAIIA Op BISSO7] 10 ouOISeY e][ap OzzeTeY 


“URL TA 


12 


* 
eo 

a 

; ae 
cd 
2 
& 


inari 


Phot. Al 


Chiaravalle Milanese. Exterior of the church (founded 1135, dedicated 1221) 


13 


e 


Phot. Arti Grafich 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


iano near Cantu. 


Gall 


Baptistery (beginning of 11' cent.) 


Agliate (Monza). Apse of the Abbey Church (end of 9th cent.) — 


14 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


(9th— 10* cent.) 


t and a part of the pontile 


i 


Interior of the Abbey Church with pulp 


Agliate (Monza). 


ae 


i 


as ee 
2 toni ee LODE a A 


SORES 


Phot. Brogi 


15 


Pavia. Facade of S. Pietro in Ciel d’Oro (12+ cent.) 


16 


Pavia. Main doorway of S. Pietro in Ciel d’Oro (12¢» cent.) 


Phot. Alinari 


Phot. Alinari 


) 


ichele (12t» cent. 


M 


de porch of S. 


i 


la 


Pav 


Ricci, Romanesque 2 


18 


— 


DAES 


seems 


MID 


Ys, 


x 


4 

| 
| 
| 
a 
: 4 
ae 


aaa 


PEE SSRI 


inari 


. Al 


Phot 


) 


(12'h cent 


ichele 


M 


in porch of S 


. Ma 


la 


Pav 


19 


a naan 
ETRE OFA LCOS 


2 


Phot. Alinari 


Pavia. Fagade of S. Michele (12t cent.) 


20 


Almenno, San Salvatore (Bergamo). Exterior of S. Tommaso in Limine (11 cent.) 


ae 
saree pet 


Phot. Alinari 


Almenno, San Salvatore (Bergamo). Interior of S. Tommaso in Limine (11+ cent.) 


Phot. Alinari 


on 


22 


De een : 
alba ks 


inari 


Phot. Al 


Crema. Cathedral facade (13) cent.) 


23 


ROR RE APD 


inari 


Phot. Al 


Cremona. Baptistery (1167). 


24 


Como. Palazzo del Broletto (1215) 


Phot. Alinari 


22 


LTE Ned BM ral 


(3429 wT) 9]9pay ues jo osdy 


“Our07) 


26 


Phot. Alinari 


Como. Apse and towers of S. Abbondio (end of 11» cent.) 


27 


apyesy Way “}O4g 


( 


1U99 wT] —mOT) Adoues ‘orja1g“S 


“OPATA) aS “Col 9110 [-b]10g “OUI0") 
ueurTy “304d 


RNa 


a. 


28 


apyery my 04d 


(3099 mIT—m OT) ‘011g °S JO MorA-opis pur osdy “(Aru114) 


9}eAID 


j 
| 


pe 


MIPYEAD NAV }O4d 


(3499 wIT—OT) Ont *S Jo Aqqoy souuy *9yBAI+ 


30 


Civate. Parapet-panels (stucco) in S. Pietro (10th—11*» cent.) — 
Verona. Font in S. Giovanni in Fonte (end of 12th cent.) 


AIS RES TEED 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Phot. Alinari 


31 


taeurly “}o4d 


( 


PESO REGL 


) 


[ey1od apis pue (GET) snefootny 10}djn9s 


ay} Aq yeysod ureyy ‘[erpoyzes 


weUILy 04d 


<i ies acacia aR aR In” 


“BUDIIA 


52 


S. Zeno. Main portal by the sculptors Nicolaus and Wiligelmus (1139) 


Phot. Alinari 


Ricci, Romanesque 3 


Phot. Anderson 


33 


Verona. Interior of S. Zeno (11th— 12th cent.) 


Os 


gees Riticaaerm 


easement 


se 


Verona. S. Zeno. Left entrance to the crypt and to the choir (11th— 12+» cent.) 


Poe 


Phot. Alinari 


Aosta. Belfry of St. Ours (13+ cent.) 


Phot. Alinari 


36 


Aosta. Cloisters of the Collegiate Church of St. Ours (1135 — 1159?) 


Phot. Alinari 


Cavagnolo Po. Main Portal of the Abbey Church of S. Fede (12th cent.) 


Phot. Alinari 


OT 


38 


ueulTy 304d 


(3499 ZT) Aeqqy 943 jo 


SI9}SIO[D  *(I49TYD) OURlOZZIA, 


39 


eu 304d 


(3099 WZ) Aeqqy 24} JO SAaysIO[D “(149IYD) OURlOzZza/A, 


40 


(}U99 wET) S19yxoUy 9zU0IG OM], 
eapayyey “esng :348ry — (3499 wWZT) ONMID *S IP EOS] Jo younyo ayy ur ydjng “eYO,p ose] 
weUuy Od 


41 


Ee del 


wT) OIG *S JO 10MAyU] “HSV 


42 


inari 


Phot. Al 


) 


Side portal of the Cathedral (13*» cent. 


Genoa. 


Genoa. Section of the Cathedral side portal (13* cent.) 


zt é 2 | 


Phot. Alinari 


43 


44 


tBUtTYy }0Uq 


(}U99 q E]) 9eunwos ozze[eg 9Y} Jo ‘apis yoy ‘aed soddq ‘ezusoe1g 


Mas 


a be 


Piacenza. Right side 


of the Palazzo Comunale (13+ 


Sk) 


cent.) 


SS 


Phot. Alinari 


45 


46 


"48D "A 304d 


| 4 b e 
(}U99 wET) [eapoyyeD 9y} Jo MaIA xoeg *(ezus0eIq4) Oyenbieyjayses 


47 


ueurpy “}04d 


(3099 wET— GT) [APEyIeD Oy} JO MOIA UIE, “BZUDDeIq 


48 


Piacenza. Cathedral facade (12th— 13» cent.) 


veal 
| 


aS gga TINO oe 


eed 


ROR 


Phot. Alinari 


49 


i 


. Alinar 


Phot 


) 


. 


Interior of the Cathedral (12‘»—13' cent 


Piacenza. 


4 


Ricci, Romanesque 


50 


Bn 


nei an 


regis aneniset ton naehpenebapeinersinhmentane-e: 


fon item Aap agit manna Ammonia KM MerNh naN—DineMatgehte 


Sonngatin cess’ oni iticasrnerionge nents sone 


Phot. Alinari 


Borgo San Donnino. Main portal of the Cathedral (12 cent.) 


Borgo San Donnino. Right side portal of the Cathedral (12'» cent.) 


Phot. Alinari 


51 


Phot. Alinari 


Borgo San Donnino. Section of the Cathedral facade with sculptures by Benedetto Antélami 
(12th cent.) 


53 


Phot. Alinari 


élami 


ith sculptures by Benedetto Ant 


ion of the Cathedral facade w 


Sect 


ino. 


Borgo San Donn 


(12th cent.) 


54 


eur "}0Ud 


(3U99 mwEL—mIT) Arejsydeg pure jeapoyyea “eueg 


Parma. Part of the Cathedral facade with the central portal by Giovanni Bono da Bissone (1281) 


55 


56 


(-qeD “a 394d) 


(7}U99 y Z1) [erpeyyes 2 vas 9 wi 
1 peyies 94} jo Arayyes sunu oy} Jo sjeyides omy, ‘ewed (U99 4G) WRI 0} peqiiose [eipsy}zeD oY} Ul sUOIY} d]qQUeI] 
I “eULIe 


Phot. Alinari 


Phot. Alinari 


Parma. Baptistery. Lunette of the south portal carved by Benedetto Antélami, and font 
(both end of 12t cent.) 


a 


58 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Parma. Interior of the Baptistery (12t»—13th cent.) 


By, 


inari 


Al 


Phot. 
élami (end of 12th 


cent.) 


ith statues by Benedetto Ant 


tery w 


1S 


ide of the Bapt 


Parma. Details of the outs 


60 


beenenpenaee 


Phot. R. Gab. 


) 


istery (end of 12th cent 


in portal of the Bapt 


Ma 


Parma. 


61 


\, 
4, 


>> 


% 


. Alinari 


Phot. 


) 


Facade and belfry of the Cathedral (12th cent 


Modena. 


62 


ueurpy 304d 


(3499 w ZI) [EApEWPeD oy} JO MIA opis “euapoy| 


63 


weuTYy 304d 


( 


"JU99 wT) [eApeye_ IY} Jo 1O119}Uy + “euapoy] 


64 


et 


tiacbecitiocss 


s 


Phot. Emilia 


Bologna. Casa Isolani (13t» cent.) 


65 


uBUry 304d 


(-7U99 yj []) OURJI}IG “S Ul 9}eTIG JO YNOD peq[es-0G 


* 


* 


Oe 


“eusO;Og 


Ricci, Romanesque 5 


66 


leur “304d 


“OSSE]-) ul greuljody Ss 


(918-908) P]oo1]9,4 fo Adoueo seyy 
“BUUDAL YY = Adouro yus90 uW6 Re jo yore 9} YIM ‘(-u90 wT) We1IYyoOso f OIPpIo7y jo quo, “eusojog 


weuly "yO4d 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Phot. R. Gab. 


67 


Ravenna. S. Francesco. Belfry (10t* cent.) and Belfry of S. Apollinare Nuovo (10t® cent.) 


68 


laeurpY "}OUd 


proee 


Le 


(}U99 ug ‘OLOpoay], Jo soe[eg pay[ed-os) soeeg typjed “BuUDAeY 


69 


; 
i 


inari 


Phot. Al 


Pomposa (Ferrara). Facade and belfry of S. Maria (11*» cent.) 


70 


is 
vg seem 


Pomposa (Ferrara). Details 


of the belfry and facade of S. Maria (11*» cent.) 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Phot. Alinari 


Pomposa (Ferrara). S. Maria. Pierced side window and details of the front side of the narthex (11* cent.) 


71 


ie 


teurpy 34g 


(yua9 wGl) [eApayzeD 24} Jo [e}od-apis 34511 pue jeyzod ure, ‘eres if 


waBury 304d 


RE 


SSE 


TEeee es: SS 


i, 


Phot. Alinari 


Florence. Baptistery (11'»— 13+ cent.) 


ie 


74 


(‘qu20 y¢[) quowaaed Arays1yydeg oy} jo s[reyoq ‘s0UaA0].J — *('}U29 WZ) OZUEI0] *s Jo Wdjng *(aduat0],J) eUsIC 


weurly “34d uueulTy "o4g 


ram @e a ne)“ Ibe o okt ~ 


rs : 
>: - Any yg | 


jie 


Phot. Alinari 


) 


Part of the interior of the Baptistery (12th cent 


Florence. 


HOILPIDP ID 1 1-e 


5 0 = et -e€ 


Us 


Spee neal 


O 


4 


a Je 


ae 


a 
ae 


Phot. Alinari 


Florence (Vicinity). Badia of Fiesole (11 * cent.) 


Phot. Alinari 


77 


Pisa. Baptistery, Camposanto, Cathedral and Leaning Tower 


78 


Gio) teu! 


(3099 WZ) [e4peyyD 9y} Jo sanzons}s 
zaddn jo spreyoq ‘estg — “([ZZ1) ode] sz9}seyy 0} paqtiose oq sdeysod Aeui { as0yeayeg ‘cg Jo opedey ‘a0uaI0].4 


BUY 304d 


DRE RAR ED AIT 


7h) 


Lso01g *}OUg 


( 


W929 ZT 


wt 


) 


Aedes 


esi 


80 


. Alinari 


Phot 


Pisa. The Leaning Tower, begun 1174, and the Cathedral (11h— 12» cent.) 


Paes 


Ricci, Romanesque 


6 


81 


82 


Bia cel Ayal 


OR TTAB ee eee 


(}U99 wyZI) Bpedef ay} JO s[teyaq “esl 


sai ao 


ied ae % ai De ee 


ssf 
Da 


S@ 
Dnt 


Cagliari. Side portal of S. Cecilia (13'» cent.) 


¢ 
o 

% 
=) 


~ 


Phot. Alinari 


83 


84 


Cagliari. 


Torre dell’ Elefante, built by Giovanni Capula (1305) 


Phot. Alinari 


Dolianova. Side of S. Pantaleo (12 cent.) 


Phot. Alinari 


85 


86 


laeuryy 304d 


(2099 wZL—w TL) OUlARD “Ss [eApoyyD ey} Jo apis 


*S9110}0}10g 


* 


87 


(-3U99 wyZT JO Fey puoosas) yoinyy ‘eI 


eu 30Ud 


ae aT 


88 


Phot. Alinari 


Oristano. Knocker on the Cathedral by Piacentino (1228). — Arezzo. 
of S. Maria della Pieve (1216) 


Phot. Alinari 
Detail of the left side-portal 


Pistoia. Portal of S. Pietro (about 1265) 


gency meron: meragepnione 


Phot. R. Gab. 


89 


90 


Lucca. Main Portal of S. Maria Forisportam (12t» cent.) 


Phot. Alinari 


Lucca. Apse of S. Maria Forisportam (12+ cent.) 


Phot. Alinari 


91 


92 


"4D “A 304d 


(LELL—ZLTT) opedes oy} yy S11 oy} uo 


“(§ZZ1) A4yJ9q pue osdy ‘ouerpats*s ‘eoon7y] 


eur 304d 


93 


eu }OUd 


(3499 wZT) 


lApeSIOLG 


Aq O40J04s117 


S JO [eyWOg ureP] — ("JU99 wWZ]) luURAOIT 
weary youd 


rate 


Sed ale 


Boon] 


94 


& ANDAMAN | 


ao 2 TRS 


4 


uc a Rf 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Lucca. S. Michele (12* cent.) 


2 


° 


os 
‘as 
=e @ 


; 
; 
i 


Mt He Seba, 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Lucca. Cathedral S. Martino (11t»— 13 cent.) 


96 


EERE RRR EE” 


Oye 


pags ge CaP 


BES es 


<x 


rie 


ae 


4 
- 


inari 


Phot. Al 


idetto da Como (beginning of 13* cent.) 


in the Cathedral narthex by Gu 


Lucca. Pier 


Ricci, Romanesqne 


7 


Lucca. Facade of S. Giusto (12t—13+h cent.) 


Phot. Alinar 


i 


97 


98 


Lucca. 


Phot. Alinari 


Phot. Alinari 


Details of the main portal of S. Giusto (12'»—13th cent.), and font of S. Frediano by Master 
Robertus (1151) 


Colle di Val d’Elsa (Siena). Side of the Cathedral (13* cent.) 


99 


100 


teuryy 304d 


(-quao wZ1) ‘yoanyp ysiued pig “BooN'] {vou VdIpPNIT) Jap BURIA] *S 


101 


taeuryy "yO 


(7}U99 yy T 1) yoanyo a4} Jo 


19MO} PUL OPIS 


*(eusIS) OWNjUY ues 


102 


* 
a 


ve 
L 
i 
eo 
&* 


Phot. Alinari 


Sant’Antimo (Siena). Side portal of the church (13+ cent.) 


103 


Phot. Alinari 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Sant’Antimo (Siena). Details of the main portal of the church (13+ cent.) 


104 


Phot. Alinari 


Sant’Antimo (Siena). Apse arcade of the church (11th cent.) 


105 


Phot. Alinari 


Arezzo. Fagade of S. Maria della Pieve by Marchionne Aretino (1216) 


106 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 
Arezzo. Left entrance to the crypt and choir in S. Maria della Pieve (1216) 


107 


Arezzo. S. Maria della Pieve. Details of a colonnade of the facade (1216) 


108 


(U99 w ET) [eapeyeD ‘(OJsssory) euTAWIePy Bessey 


109 


een 


——— - " ee ane Sa: cua rien 


? ees a 
on cn 


mr 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Massa Marittima (Grosseto). Detail of the Cathedral fagade (13' cent.) 


110 


teurly “}0Ud 


(3U99 yE[) SIQMOT, BY, “(BUaIG) OURUSIUIID “Ss 


He Mah 


ueaITYy 304d 


( 


3099 ZT) CUNY “S [EApoyID oY} JO seo 


"GED “A 3d 


“ISISSYY 


112 


es 


eS Ee Se es 
Phot. R. Gab. 


Perugia. Portal of S. Costanzo (12th cent.) 


113 


Phot. Alinari 


Foligno. Side portal of the Cathedral (1201) 


Ricci, Romanesque 8 


114 


se) sel t9Ud 


(6ZG[) CURWOY ee, IP O1JDIG JO SA9}SIO[D *(0USI[O.J) OAIAOSseS 


Vale 


( 


"qeD "A 304d 


}U99 yy, ZT) [24payieD 24} Jo [eyzod ureur 94} UO pue (}UId wW6E) eIWOjNY 


S UI suUUIN[OD OM} UO SulAred 9U0}G ‘oyTodcG 


AS y 
AA S> % 


116 


Motes 


ae Soe ne 


Spoleto. Top: sarcophagus of S. Isacco Siro (8t and 12t cent.). Middle: portal arch of the old 
parish church of Castelvitaldi (1141). Bottom: relief in the museum (12+, cent.) 


Phot. R. Gab. 


117 


(3499 wrL—aZl 


) onjatq 


S JO apesej 94} Jo Weg 


‘oyojods 


118 


eUlly 304d 


(3499 wWZT) 


S19}SIO]D JY} JO SUIeUIAT pue OIZIyNyY “Ss *(0}9[0d¢) aT[eAtpatg 


119 


"qe “A 310Ud 


(U99 WZ) 


sqejs 9[qae ur P[O YIM 


OISSe7) 


S Jo jedeyp yeapoyyep 


“1UIBN] 


120 


OZze|ed 94} Ul MOU 


ueurpy 304d 


‘oradsoig 


S ut Ayr9WI0} 


(3499 6 —w8) BUs19AIUP) eT[eP 


‘kdoues 


e1lsniag — 


"eye UBOSNAYA YIM ( 


weurly 304d 


U9 


wE]) Ozus107] “Sg yo Adoues 


"OJIAIO 


121 


PAREN Nef SR Gal 


( 


W099 WET 


nol) 


ojodog jap oueydes jap ozze[eg 


"OPIAIO 


122 


aieeiGabe 


Phot 


iazza by Filippo (1210) 


iP 


i 


ia d 


Mar 


Part of the facade of S. 


Ancona. 


123 


spyeIy yy WY 


(3429 wT) sosdy (eyers0R\]) ‘Quetys uo 


oIpne|y ues 


124 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Prewiticab. 
San Claudio on Chienti (Macerata). Fagade (11*» cent.). — San Vittore (Fabriano). Apses and side 
(10 cent.) 


123 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Ascoli Piceno. Baptistery (12'» cent.) 


126 


inari 


Phot. Al 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Cingoli. Portal of S. Esuperanzio (13> cent.). — Fermo. Side Portal of the Cathedral (12* cent.) 


1A | 


ia: cori a) 
Phot. R. Gab. 


Phot. Moscioni 


Ascoli Piceno. Part view of the so-called casa Langobarda (8th—9'h cent.). — 
Lugnano in Teverina (Perugia). View of the crypt. (12 century) 


128 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Ascoli Piceno. So-called Langobard House (8**—9 thcent.) 


129 


Phot. Alinari 


Tarquinia. Towers of the Palazzo dei Priori (11 cent.) 


Ricci, Romanesque 9 


& 
- 


30 


1 


(499 WZ] Pru ynoge) O][93seD Ip ee "S “erunbse Ly 


131 


Phot. R. Gab, 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Montefiascone. Capital in S. Flaviano (11t» cent.) 
Viterbo. Museum, marble lunette (13th cent.) 


132 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Phot. R. Gab, 


Montefiascone. Capitals in S. Flaviano (11¢» cent.) 


I ro J 


UES) EARN 


(3499 wET) AeA OuNsoII9q ° 


S 


Osa 


na” il 


134 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Phot. Moscioni 


S. Gimignano (Siena). Well (13th cent.). — Viterbo. Interior of S. Giovanni in Zoccoli (11 cent.) 


130 


ueulyy “you { 


ot ee et ek Ted 


SVEN FSD 
= 


geet 


(1U99 WET—m[[) 12MO} pue D10ISSeYy eLRY] “SG “eI[IUBISO], 


PRIS Se 


ann gente: 


136 


AetTay eal TNFa 


(7qu99 


mT) 401sSey] Bley] “S FO el4od yYyS11 pue yo] 


eUITY "yO4g 


“B][9UBISO T 


137) 


Phot. Alinari 


Toscanella. Main portal of S. Maria Maggiore (13th cent.) 


138 


BUY 34d 


7 (429 mOI—n6 
JO yore YIM) eyeLSayTo> oy ur Adoues ‘eussjog — °(}U99 wWZ]) BOISSeYY ele] “S jo Wd[ng “e[[eueosoy, 


"qeD "A Ud 


i 


DTA 


Usb, 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Toscanella. Interior of S. Maria Maggiore (11 cent.) 


140 


Toscanella. Part of nave of S, Maria Maggiore (11> cent.) 


141 


Phot, Alinari 


ietro (12th cent.) 


Cryptiof o.P 


Toscanella. 


142 


BUY “304g 


(3499 wI[—m6) ONAld “S JO NOYD “eTjoueoso |, 


143 


"qeD “A 04d 


( 


199 ZT) 


[sie yyoU 


wo ugoS OA} Ss jo AIO119} UT 


“e][PUBISOT 


144 


taeunpy "04d 


(3499 wTT) yomnyD 
oy} Jo [eyod-apis WSry “NY “S [ese — *(7U99 mET—wmGI) WNIWOoosoN] ay} Jo [eyOg ‘eoluRsdeD 


ayptyery Nay “304d 
SS 


145 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Phot. Alinari 


Capranica. Lunette of the portal of the Nosocomium (12th—13*» cent.). — 
Civita-Castellana. Back wall in the Cathedral by Diodato and Luca dei Cosmati (13'' cent.) 


Ricci, Romanesque 10 


146 


weUurfy 304d 


(3499 TT) YANyD oy Jo s01s9}U] 


Puss deo 


147 


F gp 


bos nt Se 


YY YH) 


wien, as Cates A  aencaesintill 


i 

i 
1 
t 
t 
Pt 
a4 


Phot. Alinari 


Arch of the Cathedral Porch by Lorenzo and Jacopo dei Cosmati (1210) 


Civita-Castellana. 


148 


TwoLosoy “}OUq 


(3499 yw TT—mOT) Ysnyp eoyiseq ay} Jo 
Je}ye urew oy} Jo Adouesy ‘ely 's [aseD — *(}U99 ZI) oun ye vaipuy *S jo Adoues ‘ourwoy ouezu0g 


1UOLDSOJ, ‘yOUdg 


149 


Phot. Alinari 


Paolo (12' cent.) 


iovanni e 


Rome. Apse of SS.G 


150 


a an 
Cette ys 
Paks y 


cee een Se eT eee 


sea ereeearnteiss 


Phot. R. Gab, 


Rome, Belfry of S. Francesca Romana al Foro (13' cent.) 


151 


as 


Phot. Alinari 


Rome. Facade and campanile of S. Maria in Cosmedin (8'» and 12th cent.) 


poe 


Phot. Moscioni 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Rome. Well in the cloisters of S. Giovanni in Laterano (8t cent.) and well near 
S. Giovanni di Porta Latina (9' cent.) 


ies 


"qeD "A 3°Ud 


(}U99 WET JO SolreuUDd.ap ySA1}) IYBUOIOD 01}{ENZ “SG Jo SAd}SIO[F) “OWIOY 


154 


weuly 34d 


(*JU99 WET JO P4lyR ySaLJ) SOPoT[eSseA 9Y} Aq OURIO}eT] UI 


TUUBAOIT) UBS JO S19}SI0[D 


“IUIOY 


157) 


lueully 304d 


(-qua9 


mE FO Jey 3S.1}) BINUL OT Won} ojoed Ss jo S19}STO[") 


“IUIOd] 


156 


weuTy yOUd 


(34299 ET JO Paty ysaty) 
SO}JOT[eSSe A 9q} Aq oueiog}e] ul TUUBAOIL) Ss S19}SIO]O 94} jo 99IUIOD pue 9ZIIA} [eyUsMTe UIC) “QUlOY 


caiveeanitan-oaneepesempeemienaaeee Serr antag ie en era nr eR ceeerern nrc ctirnimnn ces panna 


157 


Phot. Moscioni 


Rome. Details of the cornice of the cloisters of S. Giovanni in Laterano by the Vassallettos 
(first third of 13¢» cent.) 


158 


Rome. Parapet slabs in S. Sabina (824—827) 


ley 


Phot. Moscioni 


Anagni. Detail of the episcopal throne by Vassalletto from Rome (1263). — Rome. Parapet slabs in the 
Museum of the Castel Sant’Angelo (9t» cent.) 


160 


"qeD "A 304d 


(90LI—6601) HeU0109 0.133eND “SG JO S49}SIO[D BY} UI MOU ‘UIe}UNO “sWOY 


161 


Rome. Candelabrum of the Easter Candle in the Basilica Church of S. Paolo by Nicola d’Angelo dei 
Cosmati and Pietro Vassalletto (towards end of 12th cent.) 


Ricci, Romanesque 11 


162 


Ane Af write. vw. we eit A bee v. St 

a h Vd ars 3 je>< . 
4 NAS oe ep aan tae : , ROW Ey 
ans % Pe tees ae Bei s ¥ y ss er , a - 
See VAY. 
Sag cae & 4” 


ay 


- 8 con. 
PN Serta tk) FiBL 
ae — roe BA 


he tin 


Phot. Moscioni 


ee 


Phot. Moscioni 


Rome. Paliotto in S, Maria in Cosmedin, tomb of Alfano, the Chamberlain of Calixtus II. (1123). — 
Pavement mosaic in S. Clemente (11th—12t» cent.) 


163 


e Shaqeqeserenecs 


hw 4 sitivsiis . 
$3, me 


By: 
ites 


: Pg eS 
Seo ha Be cee hehe’ 


bine 


ated ctvad, 


PSHE SS 
‘ Bor oe 


Se ne eee 


Spiga Oe 
4 


a 

2 Fig 4 
Ves 
4 P44 bs 


Phot. Alinari 
Rome. Paliotto in S. Cesareo (12th cent.) and in S. Prassede (13 cent.) 


164 


taeUrLYy 34d 


(}U99 4,6) 9}USTI]D “CS Ul U49}99] pue pIdjng ‘sWOY 


 aeteapte eee aaaae 


Sis netasmrascoee cet pe 


165 


Phet. Alinari 


Rome. Pulpit in S. Clemente (9th cent.) and candelabrum (13t» cent.) 


166 


quoLosoy “OU 


ae 


(}U99 WET piu) eurqieg ‘S ul pue (po}eAoUal YonuT “U9 


nee 


z 


sd The Set i. te 


Creve re we! vr 


43 Pererer rr te 


add mhpahh be bard ee® & 


vyvere 


ea rae eh & em 


~ 
, 
r 
¢ 
» 
, 
La 
* 
> 
> 
% 


rer" yee eeee 


MET) Oe1VsaZ *¢ ur souosy} [edoosidy 


TuOdloso[y “youd 


“oOWO Ry 


167 


Phot, R. Geb, 


Anagni. Apse and candelabrum of the Cathedral (13th cent.) 


168 


Phot. Moscioni 


Anagni. Apses of the Cathedral (11t» cent.) 


169 


Phot. R. Gab, 


Ferentino. Apse of S. Valentino (13th cent.) 


170 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Phot. Moscioni 


Terracina. Details of the pulpit and pavement in the Cathedral (13 cent.) 


171 


Phot. R. Gab. 


ms 
_ 
4 


ia 
3 


prz] 


Phot. Moscioni 


Atri. Font in the Cathedral (12t cent.). — Rome. Wooden chest, formerly in Terracina Cathedral, 
now in the Palazzo Venezia (11*» cent.) 


172 


“hb ae 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Rosciolo near Magliano de’ Marsi (Aquila). Apse of S. Maria in Valle Porclaneta (13 cent.) 


173 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Rosciolo near Magliano de’ Marsi (Aquila). Interior of S. Maria in Valle Porclaneta (12¢» cent.) 


1/4 


"4D "A 30Ud 
‘seme 


(1U99 wET) OFNID “Ss Jo [eyo *(epmby) ouezzeg 
(7499 WET) BJouRpII0g oA Ul BUR] *S Ul 9pORUIIge}-1e]V 94} Jo sjrejoq ‘(epmby) isiep] ap ouRlsepy redu O[OINsoYy 


"qe “A 30d 


175 


"qe “A 304d 


( 


JU99 WET) OISNID *S Jo epesey 


(ejmby) ouezzeg 


176 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Rosciolo near Magliano de’ Marsi (Aquila). Pulpit of S. Maria in Valle Porclaneta (circa 1150) 


Ne 


Phot. R. Gab. 


) 


(12th—1 3th cent. 


ino or Valva 


Pel 


Pentima (Aquila). Apse of the Cathedral of S 


Ricci, Romanesque 12 


178 


Phot. R. Gab. 


RSETE ET 
MAID RG. 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Pentima (Aquila). Part of pulpit of the Cathedral of S. Pelino or Valva (end of 12th cent.) — Alba Fucense (Aquila). 
Screen in S, Pietro by Andrea of Rome (about 1225), destroyed by the earthquake of 13 January 1915 


179 


Pepe iFicy Shep 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Pentima (Aquila). Pulpit of the Cathedral of S. Pelino or Valva (end of 12th cent.) 


180 


1aeUNY 304d 


‘(O6LT) BlNeseD Ip 
a}UsUIZ “S$ JO jeyiod ureur 94} Jo 100p szu01g ‘(oWRI9]) Lasse lap a0], — “(CI6T Arenuef w¢] jo 


ayenbyjsea ay} Aq poXo.rjsap) osjarg *S JO Yyonyo oy} Jo (}U20 wWET—wZI) SIOOp uspoopy *(epInby) ssusony eqry 


luolDsoyy *70Ud 


181 


“qeD “A 3d 


(Z8LL—9LIT) euneses Ip oyuauIa[>D “Ss Jo opedsey ‘(owesa]) Uasseg lop 110], 


asses ews 


182 


A ee 
e ’ 

aL 
; . hae 


Phot. Alinari 


Torre dei Passeri (Teramo). Vestibule of S. Clemente di Casauria (1176—1182) 


183 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Torre dei Passeri (Teramo). Capitals on the fagade of S. Clemente di Casauria (1176—1182) 


184 


leur 304d 


(O81T) BLUNesed Ip 9}U9UITZ *S Jo asde 


12INQG ‘(OWlRIa]) asseg lap o110], 


185 


Phot. Alinari 
Torre dei Passeri (Teramo). Canopy of the main altar of S. Clemente di Casauria (12t' cent.) 


186 


EO Vea old 


(‘U99 WZ JO Pua) eLINneses> Ip oJUsUIIT>Z “Ss Jo Hdjnd oy} Jo yzeg *(OWRI9]) Lasseg lap 9410], 


187 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Torre dei Passeri (Teramo). Pulpit of S. Clemente di Casauria (end of 12th cent.) 


188 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Moscufo (Teramo). Pulpit of S. Maria del Lago by Nicodemus (1158—1159) 


189 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Fossacesia (vicinity). Detail of the facade of S. Giovanni in Venere (circa 1230) 


190 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Troia. Facade of the Cathedral (12th—13th cent.) 


ibe 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Troia. Rose-window of the Cathedral (13 cent.) 


192 


Kees 
BS ot. De 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Troia. Main portal of the Cathedral (1119) 


195 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


io of Benevent (1119) 


1S 


ils of a bronze door of the Cathedral by Master Oder 


Troia. Deta 


13 


Ricci, Romanesque 


194 


apPyesy MAY -WOUg 


(3499 ZT) [eAPEyID O42 JO OPIS “PIOAL, 


15 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Troia. Exterior of the Cathedral Apse (13t» cent.) 


196 


* ~ 
ast 6 Rusti hyde wimaSap © ES 


inari 


Phot. Al 


(12h cent.) 


it 


Troia. Cathedral Pulp 


197 


Phot. Alinari 


S. Leonardo. Detail of the Church side-portal (end of 12th or beginning of 13'» cent.) 


198 


Phot. Alinari 


S, Leonardo. Apse window of the Church (end of 12th or beginning of 13* cent.) 


199 


Phot. Alinari 


S. Maria di Siponto. Portal of the Church (early 12th cent.) 


200 


eUITY 304d 


(JU99 wZ] JO Suruursaq) yoanys oy} Jo 


apesey ‘oyuodig yp ene “Ss 


201 


yeurTYy 304d 


(1499 wZT Apte) yornyD 9y} JO MoIA BpIG *OjUOdIS Ip eLRYY "Ss 


202 


inari 


Phot. Al 


1120) 


Canosa. Exterior of Tomb of Bohemund (1111 


203 


Caged 
ent 


ity 
te 


~ 
See} 


Sees Chay od 


72) 


at 


Nd LE ME DETR 
Sey peed aN CoP 


Ly at I ASS SAIN 


La 


ad. 

pet, 

SOA ea 
pees 


% 


‘S) 


3 
i 


inari 


Phot. Al 


1115) 


Bronze door of Bohemund’s Tomb by Ruggero da Melfi (ca. 


Canosa. 


204 


inari 


Phot. Al 


inari 


Phot. Al 


1089). — Monte Sant’ Angelo. Throne in the 


Canosa. Bishop Ursus’ throne in the Cathedral (1078 


Sanctuary of S. Michele (second half of 12th cent.) 


205 


Phot. R. Gab. 


14th cent.) of the Cathedral 


Trani. Facade (12' cent.) and Belfry (13th 


206 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Trani. Side view of the Cathedral (12th cent.) 


207 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Trani. Apses and Belfry of the Cathedral (12th cent.) 


208 


inari 


Phot. Al 


) 


12th cent 


( 


in Portal of the Cathedral 


Trani. Ma 


209 


nc gnats 


Phot. Alinari 


Trani, Detail of the bronze door by Barisano of Trani (ca. 1179) 


Ricci Romanesque 14 


210 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


) 


Fagade of the Cathedral (early 13th cent 


Ruvo. 


2h 


inari 


Phot. Al 


) 


cent 


in Portal of the Cathedral (13th 


Ma 


Ruvo. 


212 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Ruvo. Interior of the Cathedral (13¢' cent.) 


213 


Phot. Alinari 


in Portal of the Cathedral (end of 12th cent.) 


Bitonto. Ma 


214 


(3499 ZT JO pus) [espeyyeD ‘oyworg 


215 


aIPHPAD NAV 304d 


en 
Siva’. sees 
oe, Ciny SCs 
has 


( 


JU99 WET JO Suruursoq pue wZ] 


jo pus) 


opeole [[em 94} YUM [etpoyyesy oy} JO MOIA 9PIS 


‘owO}IG 


216 


Phot. Alinari 


Bitonto. Detail of the wall arcade of the Cathedral (end of 12'» and beginning of 13th cent.) 


pay | 


i 


Phot. Alinar 


and beginning of 13th cent.) 


Bitonto. Detail of the wall arcade of the Cathedral (end of 12th 


218 


SONA A 


ite a. 2 a 


Se ree 
Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Bitonto. Detail of the wall arcade of the Cathedral (end of 12th and beginning of 13th cent.) and 
of the lectern by Master Nicola (1229) 


Pay 


Phot. Alinari 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


il of the Cathedral pulpit by Master Nicola (1229) and Font (13th cent) 


Bitonto. Deta 


220 


aypyesy WY 304d 


(}U99 WET JO Suruursaq pue yw] Jo pus) 
yoiod apts Jo [reyoq *0WUOPG — -(}U99 wE]) [PApayyD oY} Jo [eyOg UrIReY Jo jIej}aq ‘oAny 


apyeIy Hy 304g 


221 


as) clan tcl 


(6201 


) B[OOIN] A9zsSepy Aq [eIpoyyesD oy} Ul UsO}D07] pue yidjng ‘ozUO}g 


aypyedy Ay OUg 


222 


laeUrTY “34d 


(-3U99 WZ) BIOOIN “S JO apesey 


ueg 


223 


i Grafiche 


Art 


Phot 


. Nicola 


isle of S 


Bari. Outside of right a 


224 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


13th cent.) 


Bari. Cupola and Belfry of S. Nicola (12th 


225 


. R. Gab. 


Phot 


io (12th cent.) 


ili 


called Lion Portal) by Master Bas 


ide portal of S. Nicola (so 


5) 


Bari. 


Ricci, Romanesque 15 


226 


aUpyeAD WAY 04d 


(3U99 wWZT) [e4Og uory 94} Jo pue (jU99 wET) ewod urew 


ay JO spe} ePOOIN 'S “Heg 


aysyeID Ay oUg 


Phot. Arti Grafiche Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Bari. 


S. Nicola. 


Phot. R. Gab. Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Three capitals; the two upper ones in the crypt (ca. 1090), the third in the church (12th cent.) 
San Severino (Marche). Capital in the old Cathedral 


228 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


12th cent.) 


icola ( 


N 


in altar of S 


i, Canopy of the ma 


Bar 


229 


i 
- 
i. 
‘ 
t 


Phot. Alinari 


Bari. Throne of Elias in S. Nicola (ca. 1098) 


230 


x 
e 
* 


~ 


“-* ee eS 


‘—e 


Phot. Alinari 


Bari. Windows of S. Gregorio (beginning of 11» cent.) 


231 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Bari. Porch of the side entrance of the Cathedral (12*» cent.) 


232 


Phot. Alinari 


) 


Cathedral (end of 12t» cent 


indow of the 


i, Apse w 


Bar 


233 


Phot. 


Alinari 


(1180) 


in Portal of SS. Nicolo e Cataldo 


Ma 


Lecce. 


234 


Phot. Art. Grafiche 


Phot. Alinari 
Lecce. Details of the Main Portal of SS. Nicolo e Cataldo (1180). — Bari. Details of the Cathedral apse 


(end of 12th cent.) 


235 


Phot. Moscioni 


Si: Ca a SS 


Phot. Arti Grafiche Phot AvitGratiche 


Matera. Details of the Cathedral Portal (13th cent.).— Bari. Two capitals of the Loggia in the 
court of the castle (13t cent.) 


236 


URUITY “}OUd 


aeete ane ae 


(ey10d +7099 wZT YIM "JWI9 wL]) C4dJodag Je tuuRAOTD *S Jo YPANY “ISIPULTg 


PRY | 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Otranto. Crypt of the Cathedral (12th cent. The capitals and column shafts are older) 


238 


Phot. Moscioni 


Soleto. Font in the Cathedral (14'» cent.). — Galatina. Capitals of monument for 
Raimondello del Balzo (14> cent.) and of S, Caterina (14t» cent.) 


Pas) 


ponensesteanemnisviantinvosstasoansaneanr S FYER 


oat pate artcoonse ee coSoRNRO gre aS 


NOE RICCO DANN BESET ORR ONCE 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Sessa Aurunca. Pavement of the Cathedral (13th cent.) 


240 


es jas 


Ls eis os ee 


CH 


Phot. R. Gab. 


it of the Cathedral (mid 13» cent.) 


Pulp 


Sessa Aurunca 


241 


ioni 


Mosc 


Phot. 


7 = o., ov 
ogres ior: 


568604 séedor® 


* 


oo 


inion $e 


EE RE OE: 


ioni 


Phot. Mose 


) 


id 13th cent. 


it (m 


Sessa Aurunca. Details of the Cathedral pulp 


Ricci, Romanesque 16 


242 


a ees Lr ond 


Phot. R. Gab. 


Sessa Aurunca. Lower part of the Cathedral candelabrum, and details of the pulpit (mid 13th cent.) 


243 


Alinari 


Phot 


Ambo of the Cathedral (13' cent.) 


la, 


Caserta vecch 


244 


Phot. Moscioni 


Phot. Moscioni 


alta RCA achat Pesta ane aa Nhe NSN 


Phot. Alinari Phot. Alinari 


Salerno. Capital of the larger Cathedral Pulpit (ca. 1175). — Fondi (Caserta). Head of the candelabrum 
in the Cathedral (13¢" cent.). — Caserta vecchia. Aspersorium and Candelabrum in the Cathedral (13 cent.) 


245 


% 


ae, 


N 
: 
t 
$ 
" 


i Grafiche 


Phot. Art 


Benevent. Cloisters of S. Sofia (12t cent.) 


246 


apyesy NAV “04d 


1d) d de 


bud jw d-5 yy errr 


jae 


(3099 wET—wZT) [eAPeED ‘[eHOg ureyy Jo sprejaq “yuoaouag 


ueUrTY "04d 


not acct xn Di aim sme 


Ne ES A ee el CR 


law ido) havd Duss hid) cate ) 


247 


Cah! oo ei seein 


Phot. Arti Grafiche 


Benevent. Main Portal of the Cathedral (12t»—13th cent.) 


248 


{uUOlDSO|] }0Ud 


(SLIT 89) 31djnd jeapayyesd 40512] pue sa][euls 94} Jo spreyaq ‘ourajeS 


TUOlOSOP *}OUG 


a él Wey. fon 
er GC AD my 


Rr eS 


ooo 
aay BE 


ne 


bs 


249 


taeurTy “304d 


(Ke 


"B9) [erpeyye7) 24} fo udv1NS 


ay} jo yzed pure yidjnd |jeurg ‘oura[es 


aS Nes eecinne SE, 
siesisiins ioc ealeatiaaincenaienaten 


250 


wueutpy “30Uq 


(6LI1) uel], ep ouestiegd Aq 1400p 9zZu01q [eapoqye) 94} JO s[rejoqd ‘(ypewy) O[[PARY 


251 


Phot. Alinari 


i (1179) 


ils of the bronze door of the Cathedral by Barisano da Tran 


Deta 


i) 


Ravello (Amalf 


252 


teary “304d 


(ZLZT) B18804 Jo 


OdUWIO]O}eg Ip B[OSIN] 19}Se]A] Aq yidjng yeapoyyea  “(YfewY) offeaey 


23D 


(}U99 WZ] pus ‘1uer1y ep ouestseg Aq) [e}10d opis 94} Jo pue 
(OSIL ‘estq JO snuueuog Aq) [ey10d ureur [erpayyes ay} JO JOOP 9zUOI 94} Jo sfIejaq ‘aTeatUO|] 


euly ‘youd ABC OU 


is 


pI NGH 


254 


Phot. Alinari 


Monreale. Main Portal of the Cathedral by Bonannus of Pisa (1186) 


255 


LITERATURE 


Agnelli, G, Ferrara e Pomposa. Bergamo 1904. 

Agostinone, E., Il Fucino. Bergamo 1908. 

Annoni, A., Le Chiese di Pavia, parte I. Milano 1913. 

Annoni, C., Monumenti spettanti all’ arcivescovo Ariberto. 
Milano 1872. 

Arata, G. U, Il S. Antonino di Piacenza (Rassegna d’arte 
antica e moderna) 1919, 54 segg. 

— L’architettura Arabo-Normanna in Sicilia. Milano 1914. 

Arcioni, L., Restauri della Rotonda (di Brescia) in ,,Comen- 
tarii dell’ Ateneo“, 1881, p. 191. 

Aru, C., Chiese pisane in Corsica. Roma 1908. 

Atz, K., Kunstgeschichte von Tirol und Vorarlberg. 2. Aufl. 
Innsbruck 1909. 

Aus’m Weerth, Der Mosaikboden in St. Gereon zu Koln. 

Avena, A., Monumenti dell’ Italia meridionale. Roma 1902. 

Barelli, V., Monumenti comaschi. Como, 1899 (con tav.). 

— S. Maria del Tiglio in Gravedona (in ,,Rivista archeol. della 
provincia di Como“ fase. 5°. Giugno 1874, p. 1). 

— La Chiesa di S. Giacomo in Como (in ,,Rivista archeol. 
della provincia di Como“, 30 ottobre 1887). 

— La basilica di S. Abbondio nei sobborghi di Como (in 
,»Rivista archeol. della provincia di Como“, 30 ottobre 1887). 

— S. Pietro in Monti di Civate (in ,,Rivista archeol. della pro- 
vincia di Como“ fasc. settembre 1881). 

Bargellini, S., I monti del Cimino. Bergamo 1914. 

Beissel, St., Die Erztiiren und die Fassade von St. Zeno zu 
Verona (in ,,Zeitschrift fiir christliche Kunst“, V. Jahrgang, 
1892, S. 341—379). 

Beltrami, L., Gli avanzi della basilica di S. Maria in Aurona 
a Milano. Rilievi e note del prof. Gaetano Landriani; 
testo dell’ arch. L. Beltrami con prefazione del Prof. Fer- 
nand de Dartein. Milano 1902. 

— La basilica di S. Ambrogio a Milano. Milano 1921. 

— Memoria sulla Basilica di S. Ambrogio di Milano conte- 
nuta nel vol. ,,Ambrosiana“. Milano 1897. 

Berchet, F., Relazioni dell’ ufficio regionale per la conser- 
vazione dei monumenti del Veneto, volumi cinque (Ve- 
nezia, 1885—1901). 

Bernardy, A.A, Istria e Dalmazia. Bergamo 1915. 

Bertaux, E., L’Art dans I'Italie méridionale, tome I (De la 
fin de |’Empire Romain a la conquéte de Charles d’Anjou). 
Paris 1904. 

Bertoni, G., Liiscrizione ferrarese del 1135 (in ,,Studi me- 
dievali* 1907, vol. II, fase. IV, p. 477 segg. — v. pure 
vol. II. 1906—1907, p. 239). 

— Atlante storico-paleografico del duomo di Modena. 
dena 1909. 

— Atlante storico artistico del duomo di Modena. Modena1921. 

Bevilacqua-Lazise A., Asti medioevale. Milano 1911. 

— L’architettura prelombarda in Asti. (,,L’Artista moderno“, 
1910.) 

Biancolini, G. B., Notizie delle Chiese di Verona. Verona 
1749—1771 (8 voll.). 

Biadego, G., Verona, Bergamo, 1909. 

Biehl, R. W., Das toskanische Relief im XII.—XIV. Jahrh. 
Bonn 1910. 

Bindi, V., S. Angelo in Formis presso Capua ed i suoi illu- 
stratori (in ,,Rassegna d’arte antica e moderna“ a. IV, 
fasc. 1° e 2°, gennaio-febbraio 1917). 

Boggio, C., Le Chiese del Canavese. Ivrea 1910. 

Boito, C., Architettura del Medioevo in Italia, Milano, 1880. 

— Questioni pratiche di Belle Arti, Milano, 1893. 

Bottrigari, E., Cenni storici sopra le antiche e sulla odierna 
cattedrale di Bologna, negli Ati e Memorie della R. De- 


Mo- 


putazione di Storia Patria per le province di Romagna. 
Modena 1877. 

Bragato, G, Da Gemona a Venzone. Bergamo 1913. 

Brambilla, C., La basilica di S. Maria del Popolo di Pavia 
e il suo musaico. Pavia 1876. 

— Pavimento di musaico scoperto in S. Pietro in Ciel d’oro 
(R. Ist.-Lomb. di scienze, lettere ed arti, serie II, vol. XIX, 
1886, p. 724.) 

Campanari, S., Tuscania e i suoi monumenti. Monte- 
fiascone 1856. 

Campari, A., La nuova facciata della cattedrale di Pavia 
e le antiche basiliche di S. Stefano e di S. Maria del Popolo. 
Pavia 1896. 

Canestrelli, A., Arte antica senese, Siena, 1904 I (v. pure 
in Bollettino senese di storia patria 1908, 181 segg.). 

— Siena monumentale. Siena 1910 ss. 

Canevali, F., Elenco deglie difici monumentali, opere d’arte 
e ricordi storici esistenti nella Valle Camonica, Milano 1912. 

Caprin, Istria nobilissima. Trieste 1905. 

Carabellese, F., Bari. Bergamo 1909. 

Cattaneo, R., L’architettura italiana dal sec. VI al 1000. 
Venezia 1889. 

Cavagna-Sangiuliani, Il portico di S. Celso in Milano. 

— Il tempietto di S. Fedelino sul lago di Mazzola. Pavia 
1902. 

Cavazzocca-Mazzanti, V., Un nuovo archivolto del ciborio 
di S. Giorgio in Valpolicella (,,Madonna Verona“, Ann. II, 
Fasc. IV, ott., dic. 1908). 

Cecchelli, C., Il ,,tempietto longobardo“ di Cividale del 
Friuli (in ,,Dedalo“, 1924). 

— Arte barbarica cividalese (in ,,Memorie storiche forogiu- 
liesi* 1918—1924). 

Choisy, A., Histoire de l’architecture II, 439 suiv. Paris s. a. 

Cicognara L., Storia della Scultura in Italia. Prato vol. I 
1824, Il e III e IV 1823, V 1825; VI—VII 1824. 

Clausse, G., Les marbriers romains. Paris 1897. 

Colasanti, A., L’arte bisantina in Italia. Milano 1912. 

Cordero di S. Quintino, Dell’ italiana architettura durante 
la dominazione longobardica. Brescia 1829. 

Cordero, C., L’antico duomo di Brescia detto la Rotonda 
(Memoria pubblicata da F. Odorici). Brescia 1854. 

Corroyer, E., L’architecture romane. Paris 1888. 

Costantini, C., Guida di Aquileja e Grado. Milano 1916. 

Courajod, L., Legons professées a |’Ecole du Louvre, 
T. I et Il. Paris 1899 et 1901. 

Crudo, C.,, ed., L’architettura antica in Dalmazia, Part I e 
I eyalorino.s: a. 

Dami, L., Artic. sulla Chiesa di S. Miniato di Firenze in 
»Bollettino d’arte del Min. P. I.“ 1915, 217 segg. 

D’Ancona, P., Le rappresentazioni allegoriche delle arti 
liberali nel Medioevo e nel Rinascimento (in |’,, Arte“ 1902, 
Ppol 3/209.) 300): 

— L’uomo e le sue opere nelle figurazioni italiane del Me- 
dioevo. Firenze 1923. 

D’Andrade, A., Relazione dell’ufficio regionale per la con- 
servazione dei Monumenti del Piemonte e della Liguria 
Torino 1899. i 

Dartein, F. de, Etude sur l’architecture lombarde. Paris 
1869, segg. 

Davidsohn, R., Storia di Firenze. Firenze 1907 (per le 
notizie storico-artistiche nelle chiese romaniche fiorentine). 

De Angelis, G., Relazione dei lavori eseguiti per la con- 
servazione dei monumenti Roma e provincia, e delle 


provincie di Aquila e Chieti. Roma 1903. 


256 


Dehio, Die Kunst Unteritaliens in der Zeit Kaiser Fried- 
richs II. (,,Historische Zeitschrift“ LIX, 1905, S. 193—206). 

Dehio und Bezold, Die kirchliche Baukunst des Abend- 
landes. Stuttgart 1901. 

Dell’ Acqua, C., Memoria storico-descrittiva di S. Michele 
Maggiore di Pavia (in ,,Giornale dell’ ingegnere, architetto 
ed agronomo“ XII, 1864, p. 145 e p. 317). 

Dell’ Acqua, S., Artic. sul S. Michele di Pavia (in ,,Giornale 
dell’ Arch. ingegnere ed agronomo“. Pavia a. XIV, 1866, 
p. 261 eva, XV; 1867p. 49. 

Della Torre Rezzonico, Il Battistero di Callisto in Civi- 
dale d. F. Cividale. 

— Monumenti longobardi in Cividale, nel Numero unico per 
I’XI centenario di S. Paolino di Aquileja. Cividale 1906, p.4. 

De Lorenzo, G., Venosa e la regione del Vulture. Ber- 
gamo 1906. 

Di Lella, A., Cripte meridionali (in ,,Arte“ IX, 1906, p. 140). 

Dondi, A., Notizie storiche e artistiche del Duomo di 
Modena. Modena 1896. 

Enlart, C., Manuel d’Archéologie francaise, tome I, II. 
Barise! 9021903 

Enlart, E., L’architecture romane (in Michel: Histoire de 
lart, vol. I, parte II, pp. 443—588). 

Errera, C., L’Ossola. Bergamo 1908. 

Faccioli, R., Relazione dei lavori compiuti dall’ ufficio 
regionale per la conservazione dei monumenti dell’ Emilia, 
part Ie II. Bologna 1898 e 1901. 

Faloci-Pulignani, A., Una pagina d’Arte Umbra (per alcue 
sculture romaniche di Bevagna). — Foligno 1903. 

Feigel, A., S. Pietro in Civate (,,Monatshefte fir KW.“ II, 
Heft 4, April 1909). 

Ferri, S., Le Chiese Medievali di Piacenza. Milano 1912. 

Fogolari, G, Cividale del Friuli. Bergamo 1906. 

Fontana, P., Sull’ origine dell’ arte lombarda (,,Archivio 
storico lombardo“, 31. Dic. 1896. Milano 1896). 

Frothingam, The Monuments of christian Rome. London 1909. 

Gabelentz, H. von der, Mittelalterliche Plastik in Venedig. 
Leipzig 1903. 

— Die kirchliche Kunst im italienischen Mittelalter. 
burg 1907. 

Gabiani, N., Le torri, le case-forti ed i palazzi nobili me- 
dievali in Asti. Pinerolo 1906. 

Galli, E., Articolo sul S. Giovanni di Firenze in ,,Rivista 
d’arte“ IX, 1917. 

Gardella, O., I campanili di Ravenna, nella Rassegna d’Arte 
del 1902. 

Garrucci, R., Storia dell’Arte cristiana dal I secolo all’ VIII 
(voll. I—VI. Prado 1872—1880). 

Gavini, J. C., Storia dell’ Architettura in Abruzzo (di prossima 
pubblic). (Un saggio in ,,Rassegna d’arte degli Abruzzi 
e del Molise“ 1915, I segg.) 

Gerola, G., L’architettura deutero-bizantina in Ravenna, nei 
Ricordi di Ravenna medioevale. Ravenna 1921. 

Giovannoni, G., Opere dei Vassalletti marmorari (,,L’ Arte“ 
1908, p. 262 segg.). 

— I monasteri di Subiaco, Roma 1904, I, 313. 

— Artic. sui marmorari romani in ,,Archivio Soc. romana di 
storia patria“ 1904, 5 segg. 

Giussani, A., L’oratorio di S. Martino. (,,Rivista archeolo- 
gica della citta e’ antica diocesi di Como“, 41°, 1903). 

— L’abbazia dei SS. Pietro e Calocero in Civate (in _,,Rivista 
archeol. della Provincia e antica diocesi di Como“. 
1921): 

Gothein, E., Die Kulturentwicklung Siid-Italiens in Einzel- 
Darstellungen. Breslau 1886. 

Gozzadini, G,, Delle torri gentilizie di Bologna. Bologna 1880. 

Gravina, D., Il duomo di Monreale. Palermo 1859. 

Grisar, H., Artic. sui marmorari romanici Umbri in ,,N. Bul- 


lettino d’arch. crist.“, 1895, 42 segg. e 127 segg. 


Straf- 


Como 


Hammer, Mysterium Baphomentis revelatum (,,Fundgruben 
des Orients“ VI). 

Haupt, A., Die Entstehungsgeschichte der romanischen Or- 
namentik (,,Monatshefte fiir Kunstwissenschaft“ VIII, 
S. 309. Leipzig 1915). 

— Die Alteste Kunst, insbesondere die Baukunst der Ger- 
manen (II. Aufl. 1923). Berlin. 

Heider, G., Das Gliicksrad (studio sulla ,,ruota della For- 
tuna “motivo usitatissimo nell’ arte romanica) (Mitteilungen 
der k. k. Zentralkommission-Wien, 1859). 

Hiibsch, H., Monuments de |’Architecture chrétienne (trad. 
Guerber). Paris 1866. 

Huillard-Bréholles, Recherches sur les monuments de 
histoire des Normands et de la maison de Souabe dans 
I'Italie méridionale. Paris 1844. 

Ivekovic, C. M., Die Entwickelung der mittelalterlichen 
Baukunst in Dalmatien. Wien 1910. 

Jackson, T. G., Byzantine and romanesque Architecture. 
Cambridge 1913. 

Kingsley-Porter, A., The Construction of Lombard and 
Gothic Vaults, 1911. 

— The Chronology of Carolingian Ornament in Italy. ,,Bur- 
lington Magazine“ 1907. 

— Lombard Architecture (voll. 2). New-Haven 1917. 

— Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrimage Roads. Boston 1923. 

Kowalezyk, G. und Gurlitt, C., Denkmaler der Kunst in 
Dalmatien. Berlin 1910. 

Kraus, F. X., Geschichte der christlichen Kunst. 
bure 1. Br. 1896 ff: 

Kutschmann, Th., Romanische Baukunst und Ornamentik. 
Berlin 1902. 

Liibke, W., Geschichte der Plastik, Band I—II. Leipzig 1884. 

Maffei, S., Verona illustrata. Milano 1825. 

Malaguzzi-Valeri F., Milano (Parte I e Il). Bergamo 1906. 

Male, E., L’art religieux du XIII° siécle en France 2° éd. 
Paris 1902. 

Marangoni L., La basilica di S. Marco in Venezia, 2* ed. 
Milano 1916. 

Marinelli, M., L’architettura romanica in Ancona. 
1921. 

Mariotti, C., Ascoli-Piceno. Bergamo 1913. 

Martin, Ch., L’Architecture romane en Italie. Paris, 1° éd. 

Mazzanti, F., Pulpito di Gregorio IV a Castel S. Elia 
(presso Nepi). (,,N. Bull. di Arch. crist.“, 1896, p. 34 segg.) 

— La scultura ornamentale romana dei bassi tempi (in ,,Ar- 
chivio storico dell’ Arte“ II, p. 33). Roma 1896. 

Meomartini, A., Benevento. Bergamo 1909. 

Mercanti, A, Monumenti nazionali: La Rotonda di Brescia 
(Duomo vecchio) in ,,Emporium“. Bergamo, marzo 1898. 

Merzario, G., I maestri comacini, I—II. Milano 1893. 

Michel, A., Histoire de |’Art. T. I, libro I e Il. Paris 1905 
et suiv. 

Molmenti, P. e D. Mantovani, Le isole della laguna 
veneta. Bergamo 1910. 

Monneret de Villard, U., Il battistero e le chiese roma- 
niche di Firenze. Milano 1910. 

— Lisola Comacina (estr. dalla ,,Rivista archeol. della citta e 
antica diocesi di Como“). Como 1914. 

— L’organizzazione industriale nell’ Italia langobarda durante 
lalto Medioevo (in ,,Arch. Stor. lombardo“ anno XLVI, 
fasc. I e Ill). 

— Note sul memoratorio dei maestri comacini. 
(,,Arch. Stor. lombardo“ XLVII, fase. I—II). 

— Articolo nell’ architettura romanica dalmata in ,,Rassegna 
d’arte antica e moderna“ 1910, 77 segg. 

— I monumenti del lago di Como. Milano 1917. 
Monteverdi, A., Il duomo di Cremona, il battistero e il 
torrazzo. Milano 1911. 
Monti, S., Como. Parte I. 


Frei- 


Recanati 


Milano 1920 


Milano 1910. 


Moretti, G., La conservazione dei monumenti della Lom- 
bardia (1900—1906). Milano 1908. 

Mothes, O., Die Baukunst des Mittelalters in Italien. Jena 
1882—1883. 

Nascimbeni, G.,, Il duomo di Modena. Milano 1913. 

Ongania, F. ed., La Basilica di S. Marco (il testo é di varii 
autori fra cui il Cattaneo). Venezia 1882—1892. 

— Raccolta delle vere da pozzo in Venezia. Venezia 1911. 

Orti-Manara, G., Dell’ antica basilica di S. Zenone 
Maggiore in Verona. Verona 1839. 

Osten, F., Die Bauwerke in der Lombardei vom 7. bis zum 
14. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt 1846. 

Panvinio, O., Antiquitatum veronensium. Patavii 1648. 

Papini, R., Pisa (in ,Catalogo delle cose d’Arte e d’Anti- 
chita d'Italia“). Roma 1912. 

— Artic. sul Duomo di Pisa (in ,,L’Arte“ 1913, 398 segg.). 

Parente, P., La monumentale chiesa di S. Angelo in Formis 
e l’arte del sec. XI (,,Arte e storia“, a. XXX, No. 4, p. 105 
a 108; No. 8, p. 241—242; No. 11, p. 331. Firenze 1911). 

Pasolini, P. D., Del palazzo di Teodorico in Ravenna, negli 
Atti e memorie della R. Deputazione di storia Patria per 
le provincie di Romagna. Bologna 1875. 

Poggi, G., Arte medioevale negli Abruzzi. Milano 1914. 

Puig y Cadafalch, L’area géographique de I'architecture 
lombarde (in ,,Atti del X. Congresso internazionale di 
storia dell’ Arte. Roma 1922, 100 segg.). 

Quicherat, J., De l’architecture romane (,,Revue archéolo- 
gique“ 1851, 145 segg.). 

Rathgens, H., S. Donato zu Murano und ahnliche vene- 
tianische Bauten. Berlin 1903. 

Reymond, M., La sculpture florentine. Florence 1897, T. I. 

Ricci, C., Le cripte di Ravenna, in Note storiche e letterarie. 
Bologna 1881. 

— Il castello e la chiesa di Varignana, negli ,,Atti e memorie 
della R. Deputazione di Storia Patria per le provincie di 
Romagna“. Bologna 1891. 

— Volterra. Bergamo 1905. 

Rivoira, T., Origini dell’ architettura lombarda e delle sue 
derivazioni nei paesi d’oltralpe. 2* ed. in 1 vol. Milano 1908. 

Rohault de Fleury, G., Les monuments de Pise au moyen 
age. Paris 1866. 

— La Messe, Etudes archéologiques sur ses monuments, con- 
tinuées par son fils. Paris 1883—1889. 

Romussi, C., Milano nei suoi monumenti, vol. I e II. Milano 
1o12; 

Rossi, G., S. Claudio al Chienti, Ancona 1906. 

Rupp, F. _ Inkrustationsstil der romanischen Baukunst zu 
Florenz. Strafburg 1912. 

Ruskin, John, The Stones of Venice. London 1851—53. 

Sacconi, G., Relazione dell’ ufficio regionale per la conser- 
vazione dei monumenti delle Marche e dell’ Umbria, part I 
e Il. Perugia 1901 e 1903. 

Salazaro, D., Studi sui monumenti dell’ Italia meridionale. 
Napoli 1871. 


Salm, B., Die altgermanische Tierornamentik. Stockholm 


1904. 

Salmi, M., Arte romanica fiorentina in ,L’Arte“ 1914, 
265 segg. 

— La questione dei Guidi (scultori lucchesi) in ,,L’Arte“ 1914, 
81 segg. 


Sartorio, G. A., S. Flaviano a Montefiascone, nell’ Annuario 
dell’ Accad. di S. Luca del 1915 (Roma). 

Scano, D., Storia dell’ arte in Sardegna dall’ XI al XIV 
secolo. Cagliari-Sassari 1907. 

Schlosser, J. v., Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der karolin- 
gischen Kunst. Wien 1892 ,,Quellenschriften fiir Kunst- 
geschichte und Kunsttechnik des Mittelalters und der Neu- 
zeit“), 


Ricci, Romanesque 17 (2/,) 


207 


Schlosser, J. v., Quellenbuch zur Kunstgeschichte des 
abendlandischen Mittelalters (IV.—XV. Jahrh.). Wien 1896. 

Schmarsow, A., S. Martin von Lucca. Breslau 1890. 

Schnaase, Karl, Geschichte der bildenden Kiinste bei den 
Alten (2. verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage, 7. Band). 
Diisseldorf J. Buddens, 1866—1875 (IV und VII). 

Schulz, H. W., Denkmaler der Kunst des Mittelalters in 
Unteritalien. Dresden 1860. 

Selvatico, P., Le Arti del disegno in Italia. Storia e critica; 
P. II. Milano 1880. 

Simeoni, L., Lo scultore Brioloto e l’iscrizione di S. Zeno 
(,,Atti dell’ accad. d’agricoltura in Verona“, 1898). 

— Liabside di S. Zeno e gli ingegneri Giovanni e Nicold da 
Ferrara (,,Atti dell’ Istituto Veneto“. Venezia 1908). 

— S. Zeno di Verona. Studi con nuovi documenti (testo e 
tavole separati). Verona 1909. 

Sthamer, E., Die Verwaltung der Kastelle im Konigreiche 
Sizilien unter Kaiser Friedrich II und Karl I von Anjou 
(,Die Bauten der Hohenstaufen in Unteritalien“, Bd. XII, 
Leipzig 1914.) 

Strzygowski, J., Amida, Heidelberg 1910. 

— Die Baukunst der Armenier und Europa. Wien 1918, 

Stiickelberg, E. A., Langobardische Plastik, II. Aufl. 
Jos. Kosel, Kempten und Minchen 1909. 

— Un motif décoratif du haut Moyen-age obtenu 4 |’aide 
d’hemicycles disposés deux a deux (in ,,Revue Charle- 
magne“, tome | 1911, p. 90 suiv.). 

Supino, I. B., Arte pisana. Firenze 1904. 

— Pisa. Bergamo 1905. 

— Gli albori dell’ arte fiorentina. Firenze 1906. 

— La costruzione del duomo di Pisa (,,Memorie della R. 
Accad. delle scienze di Bologna, Cl. scienze mor. 1913. 
VII e VIII). 

Swarzenski, G., Romanische Plastik und Inkrustationsstil in 
Florenz (in ,,.Repertorium f. KW.“ XXIX, p. 518. Berlin 
1916). 

Swoboda, K. M., Das Florentiner Baptisterium. Berlin 1919. 

— Romische und romanische Palaste. Wien 1919. 

Taramelli, A., La Sacra di S. Michele alle Chiuse (,,N. Antol.“ 
1903 I, 417 segg.). 


Theophilus, Presbyter, Schedula diversarum Artium. 
Wien 1873. 

Toesca, P., Aosta (Catalogo delle cose d’arte e d’antichita 
d'Italia). Roma 1911. 


— Storia dell’ arte italiana, vol. I. Torino 1913 e segg. 

Travenor-Perry, J., The Ambones of Ravello and Salerno 
(,,Burlington Magazine“ IX, p. 396. London 1907). 

— The marble and ceramic Decorations of the Roman Cam- 
panili (,,Burlington Magazine“ XI, p. 209. London 1907). 

Ugoletti, A., Brescia. Bergamo 1909. 

Vaccai, G., Pesaro. Bergamo 1909. 

Venturi, A., Storia dell’ Arte italiana voll. II e III. 
1902—1904. 

Vespasiani-Paravicini, T., La vetusta basilica di S. Vin- 
cenzo in Prato. Milano 1881. 

Vinaccia, A., I monumenti medioevali di Terra di Bari. 
Bari 1915. 

Vitzthum, G., Die Malerei und Plastik des Mittelalters (in 
Burgers ,,Handbuch der Kunstwissenschaft*). 

Wackernagel, M., Die Plastik des XI. und XII. Jahrhunderts 
in Apulien. Preuf. Hist. Inst. in Rom 1911. 

Woermann, K., Geschichte der Kunst aller Zeiten und 
Volker, III. Band. Neudruck 1921. 

Zimmermann, M.G., Oberitalienische Plastik im frihen und 
hohen Mittelalter. Leipzig 1897. 

— Die Spuren der Langobarden in der italienischen Plastik 
des ersten Jahrtausends (Verhandlungen des kunsthisto- 
rischen Kongresses zu Koln 1894, Leipzig 1894). 


Milano 


258 


Sy OIE UE IE UR sy IP Ike ZA IILCQUNT Ss 


Agliate (Monza) 
Abbey Church . : 
Alba Fucense (Aquila) 
S. Pietro . 


Almenno, San Salvatore (Beene, 


S. Tommaso in Limine . 
Anagni 

Cathedral 
Ancona 

S. Maria di Piazza 
Aosta 

St. Ours) © 
Arezzo 

S. Maria della Pieve . 
Ascoli Piceno 

Baptistery ; 

Langobard House 
Assisi 

Cathedral S Rufino . 
Asti 

S. Pietro 
Atri 

Cathedral 
Aversa 

Cathedral . 
Bari 

Castle . 

Cathedral 

S. Gregorio . 

S. Nicola . 
Bazzano (Aquila) 

S. Giusto . 
Benevent 

Cathedral 

S. Sofia 
Bitonto 

Cathedral 
Bologna 


Casa Isolani . 


S. Stefano 


Tomb of Egidio Boones 


Bolsena 

Collegiata : 
Borgo San Donnino 

Cathedral 
Brindisi 

S. Giovanni al Sepolcro 
Cagliari 

S. Cecilia . 

Torre dell’ Ficfante 
Canosa 

Cathedral : 

Tomb of Bohemund . 


page 


13, 14 

178, 180 
XVI, 20, 21 
159, 167, 168 
azz 


35, 36 


. 88, 105—107 


125 
IVER N04) 


i 


41 


t71 


VII 


235 


V9 23 152325254 


230 
222 — 229 


1745 1/5 


246, 247 
245 


213 —221 


64 
65 
66 


138 
053 
236 


83 
84 


pn 204 
202, 203 


Capranica 
Nosocomium 
Capua 
Cathedral 
Caserta vecchia 
Cathedral 
Castellarquato (Piacenza) 
Cathedral 
Castel S. Elia 
Basilica church . 
Church 
Cavagnolo Po 


Abbey Church of S. Fede . 


Chiaravalle Milanese 
Church 
Cingoli 
S. Esuperanzio . 
Civate 
S. Pietro . 
Civita-Castellana 
Cathedral . 


Colle di Val d’Elsa (Siena) 


Cathedral . 
Como 

Palazzo del Broletto . 

Porta-Torre . 

S. Abbondio . 

San Fedele . 
Cori 

S. Maria . 
Crema 

Cathedral 
Cremona 

Baptistery 
Dolianova 

S. Pantaleo 
Ferentino 

S. Valentino . 
Fermo 

Cathedral 
Ferrara 

Cathedral 
Florence 

Baptistery 

S. Salvatore . . 
Florence (Vicinity) 

Badia of Fiesole 
Foligno 

Cathedral . 
Fondi (Caserta) 

Cathedral . 


page 


144, 145 


XXV 


243, 244 


46 


148 
144, 146 


29 


12 


126 


. XVII, 27—30 


145, 147 


99 


24 
27 
26 
Ie, 


. XXIV 


22 


23 


85 


169 


126 


de 


6 TRISTE 
78 


76 


113 


244 


Fossacesia (Vicinity) 
S. Giovanni in Venere . 
Galatina 


Monument for Raimondello del Balzo . 


S. Caterina : 
Galliano near Cantu 
Baptistery 
Genoa 
Cathedral 
Gravedona 
S. Maria del Tiglio 
Lago d’Orta 
Church of Isola di S. Giulio 
Lecce 
SS. Nicolo e Cataldo . 
Lucca 
Cathedral S. Martino 
S. Cristoforo 
S. Frediano . 
S. Giovanni . 
S. Giusto . 
S. Maria Forisportam 
S. Michele ee 
Lugnano in Tavera (Perugia) 
Crypt . ior udt yom ie 
Massa Marittima (Grosseto) 
Cathedral . 
Matera 
Cathedral 
Milan 
Palazzo della Ragione 
S. Ambrogio 
S. Eustorgio . 
Modena 
Cathedral 
Monreale 
Cathedral 
Montefiascone 
S. Flaviano : 
Monte S. Angelo 
S. Michele 
Moscufo (Teramo) 
S. Maria del Lago 
Narni 
Cathedral 
Oristano 
Cathedral 
Orvieto 
Palazzo del Capitano del Popolo 
S. Lorenzo AF Sv Ae hee 
Otranto 
Cathedral 
Parma 


Baptistery 
Cathedral 


page 


189 


238 
238 


13 

42, 43 
XVI 

40 

233, 234 


95, 96 

+ SR 
O27 90 
ees 
i598 
90591 
94 

127, 
108, 109 
PRS 


eae kt 
- XI, XII XXI, 1—9 
10 


. XXIII, 61—63 
253, 254 

XVII, 131, 132 
204 

188 

119 

88 


121 
120 


237 


54, 57—60 


. VIII, XXII, 54—56 


Pavia 
S. Giovanni in Borgo . 
S. Michele : : 
S. Pietro in Ciel d’ Oro : 
Pentima (Aquila) 
Cathedral of S. Pelino or Valva 
Perugia 
Palazzo della Universita 
S. Costanzo . 
Piacenza 
Cathedral 
Palazzo Comunale 
Pianella (Teramo) 
S. Angelo . 5 
Piedivalle epee) 
S. Eutizio 
Pisa 
Baptistery 
Cathedral 
Leaning Tower 
Pistoia 
S. Pietro . 
Pomposa 
S. Maria 
Ponzano Romano 
S. Andrea al Fiume . 
Portotorres 
Cathedral 
Ravello (Amalfi) 
Cathedral : 


Ravenna 
Baptistery 
Calchi-Palace : 
S. Apollinare in Classe . 


S. Gavino . 


S. Apollinare Nuovo . 


S. Francesco 


Rivolta d’Adda 
Church 


Rom 
Basilica Church of S. Paolo 
Castel Sant’Angelo 
Palazzo Venezia 
S. Balbina 
S. Cesareo 
S. Clemente . F 
S. Francesca Romana a Foro 
SS. Giovanni e Paolo 
S. Giovanni in Laterano 
S. Maria in Cosmedin 
S. Paolo fuori le mura . 
S. Prassede . 
SS. Quattro Coronati 
S. Sabino . ; 
Well near S. Crerenni di Pore eatin 


152 el 54)0156; 


Zo 


page 


. XIX 
XX, 17—19 
XX, 15;.16 


177-179 


120 
112 


. 47—49 
. 44-45 


. XXVILI 
118 


es iF 
ld Oe 
77, 80 


89 
. 69—71 
148 
. XV, 86 
20252, 


Vil 

XIV, 68 

VIII, X, XVIII, 66 
5 2M toy 

67 


XIX 


161 
159 
Tit 
166 
166 
165 
150 
149 
ew 
162 
155 
163 
160 
158 
152 


163, 
162, 164, 


ALS I5i. 


53; 


Rosciolo near Magliano de’Marsi (Aquila) 


S. Maria in Valle Porclaneta . 


172—174, 176 


260 


Ruvo 
Cathedral 


Salerno 
Cathedral 


Sant’Antimo (Siena) 
Church 


San Claudio al Chienti (Macerata) : 


S. Gimignano (Siena) 
Towers PR 
Well 

S. Leonardo 
Church bas Oe 

S. Maria del Giudice 
Old parish church . 

S. Maria di Siponto 
Church 


San Severino (Marche) 


Old Cathedral . 
San Vittore (Fabriano) 


Sassovivo (Foligno) 
Cloisters . 


Scarperia 


S. Agata al Cornocchio . 


Sessa Aurunca 
Cathedral . 


Signa (Florence) 
Soleto 
Cathedral 


Spoleto 
Cathedral 
Reliefs . 


page 


210—212, 220 


244, 248, 249 


101—104 


POXV 123,124 


110 
134 


197198 


100 


199—201 


222i, 
124 


114 


XXIII 


239—242 
74 


238 


£15 
116 


Spoleto 
Sant’ Eufemia 
Sa lietros 
Susa 
Cathedral 


Tarquinia 
Palazzo dei Priori . 


S. Maria di Castello . 


Terracina 
Cathedral . 


Torre dei Passeri (Teramo) 
S. Clemente di Casauria 


Toscanella 
S. Maria Maggiore 
S. Pietro . 
Trani 
Cathedral 
Troia 
Cathedral 
Uta 
Church . 
Verona 
Cathedral . 
S. Giovanni in Fonte 
S. Zeno 
Vezzolano (Chieri) 
Abbey 28. )-0ee 
Viterbo 
Lunette 


S. Giovanni in Zoccoli 


S. Pellegrino Way . 


page 


vl) 
117 


40 


12g 
130 


170 
180—187 


135—140 
141—143 


205 —209 
190 —196 
87 


at 
; ee eo 
. 32—34 


385739 


131 
134 
‘) 


ed ee eo apa ap a ep ware ae 


Ce ear as Toa ee orien nein Salire re opens eenet ererers UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 


3 0112 000493921 


we ae HS ee 


Seep ape et pe ae ae 


To Sa a a a ee ah EO ae ARTI ag te eG OR ee el re a a ae 


gS eee epee ae ae ep ee Pe eee 
ee a a a ap ON EE ON 


Pan peR DENSE Sra NE eee canenRe STS Se ET STE 
Pp SeapeanereneeanacT en aneense MTS le 


= eres 


SSE si oy Saag eee See a A a ti ai a ae SE haar a re ee a ee ee a pe ar no Te 


eared 
Seseee se: 


SSicaebedchatemeteies 


see pena Ee 
we oS 


SS eS SS See eee ees SS 


acetal 


pS eraver eto 


as ce ws rien ee ae ane Spe pt ap a ip ahs me 
bane ee het eee 


aot noe eae 
ot een 
os ae ee a a ae. - 
= at 28m dent npr a mS ne a ae tan i ep a a lee 


apt Rh he ty edn er a ra ee ale bm Oe Be eee er ae Pe a reper rn oe a 


52 ae een 


Sree ee 
era aa ne ee ee 


Stine i oe eS 


A a oe he ae ene ae Gh ae ee 
wie SPS moa hd neem 


Soe end whee eee slae coe 
errr So e5ee 
Br Set ae enbne pole > 


